Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

SuicideFuel Math thread problem (official)

Gokubro

Gokubro

Captain
★★
Joined
Nov 1, 2023
Posts
1,679
PLEASE, post a math problem that is simple enough for me to solve to feel smart BUT not too hard that I can't solve it.
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
PLEASE, post a math problem that is simple enough for me to solve to feel smart BUT not too hard that I can't solve it.
What's your level?
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
I'm not sure, slightly higher than an average normie who barely knows math.
High school level math then? How about this problem:

Find the three roots of 4x^3 - 3x = 1/sqrt(2). Hint: try substituting x = cos(q) and use trig identities.
 
Grim_Reaper

Grim_Reaper

Pariah of incels.is
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 21, 2022
Posts
13,558
@Grim_Reaper @CountBleck
Since A^3 = 0, then im(A^2) is a subset of ker(A^2) which is a subset of ker(A). Let k be the dimension of im(A^2) and let n-k be the dimension of ker(A^2). Then dim(im(A^2)) ≤ dim(ker(A^2)) so k ≤ n - k which implies k ≤ n/2 so rank(A^2) ≤ n/2
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command, Psychological Operations
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
25,705
Fucking linear algebra.
 
Grim_Reaper

Grim_Reaper

Pariah of incels.is
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 21, 2022
Posts
13,558
The only way for this to be true is if A^2 = 0, which is not necessarily the case. Consider for example a 3 by 3 Jordan block with 0 along the diagonal.
Would it be safe to assume that rank(A^2) ≤ rank(A), so rank (A^2) + rank(A) ≤ rank(A^2*A) + n -> rank(A^2) + rank(A) ≤ n so rank(A^2) ≤ n/2?
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
Would it be safe to assume that rank(A^2) ≤ rank(A), so rank (A^2) + rank(A) ≤ rank(A^2*A) + n -> rank(A^2) + rank(A) ≤ n so rank(A^2) ≤ n/2?
Yes, that'd be correct. The rank of a matrix is the dimension of its image, so the obvious im(A^2) ⊆ im(A) implies that rank(A^2) ≤ rank(A). Nicely done.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command, Psychological Operations
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
25,705
If linear algebra was a girl, I'd so fuck her.
If lin alg was a girl, I'd hate fuck her. I loved the abstract algebra and group theory that came later, but lin alg can go to hell.
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
If lin alg was a girl, I'd hate fuck her. I loved the abstract algebra and group theory that came later, but lin alg can go to hell.
If you like group theory but hate linear algebra, how do you feel about representation theory?
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command, Psychological Operations
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
25,705
If you like group theory but hate linear algebra, how do you feel about representation theory?
I haven't looked into it. It's covered in graduate algebra courses that I didn't take.
 
Grim_Reaper

Grim_Reaper

Pariah of incels.is
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 21, 2022
Posts
13,558
If lin alg was a girl, I'd hate fuck her. I loved the abstract algebra and group theory that came later, but lin alg can go to hell.
Linear algebra would be a bratty teen slut while group theory would be a roastie.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command, Psychological Operations
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
25,705
Linear algebra would be a bratty teen slut while group theory would be a roastie.
Group theory would be the porn milf with the body of a 25 year old. Accurate representation (KEK) of lin alg, tbh.
 
IronsideCel

IronsideCel

✝️ Christmaxxing subhuman
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 23, 2022
Posts
12,720
Credit card billing cycles are jewed.
 
S

Sneir

ALL MY POSTS ARE LITERARY FICTION
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Posts
11,170
h = g^2 + z / 1000 * y

h = g^2 + z / 1000 * y
1699662779561
 
CruxGammata

CruxGammata

Penetrating the Cosmic Bounds
★★★★★
Joined
May 29, 2023
Posts
11,703
Just unpin this garbage lmao
 
C

CopingRiceCell

Greycel
Joined
Nov 18, 2023
Posts
1
A classic elementary one from Euler, taken from the Big Book of T:
(Paraphrasing since I don't quite remember the problem) (NT) Prove that a pos integer can be written as a sum of two perfect squares iff it can be written as a sum of squares of two rational numbers
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
A classic elementary one from Euler, taken from the Big Book of T:
(Paraphrasing since I don't quite remember the problem) (NT) Prove that a pos integer can be written as a sum of two perfect squares iff it can be written as a sum of squares of two rational numbers
While this is not too difficult if you're willing to use the sum of two squares theorem, I couldn't immediately find a way to prove it without going that route. It it possible, however, as this very elegant proof shows.
 
CountBleck

CountBleck

Officer
★★★
Joined
Jun 19, 2022
Posts
763
it's been a while since i posted here.
let s(n) be the sum of positive divisors of n.
prove that s(n) < n + nlogn for all integers n >= 2.

[hint] integrate 1/t
 
Last edited:
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
it's been a while since i posted here.
let s(n) be the sum of positive divisors of n.
prove that s(n) < n + nlogn for all integers n >= 2.

[hint] integrate 1/t
Let S(n) be the sum of proper divisors of n. We equivalently show that S(n) < n*ln(n) for n > 1.

S(n) = sum n ≠ k|n of k = n * sum n ≠ k|n of k/n = n * sum 1 ≠ k|n of 1/k ≤ n * sum 1 < k ≤ n of 1/k = n * sum 1 < k ≤ n of (1/n)/(k/n) < n * int 1/n < t < 1 (here we use that n > 1) of 1/t = n * ( ln(1) - ln(1/n) ) = n*ln(n)
 
CountBleck

CountBleck

Officer
★★★
Joined
Jun 19, 2022
Posts
763
Let S(n) be the sum of proper divisors of n. We equivalently show that S(n) < n*ln(n) for n > 1.

S(n) = sum n ≠ k|n of k = n * sum n ≠ k|n of k/n = n * sum 1 ≠ k|n of 1/k ≤ n * sum 1 < k ≤ n of 1/k = n * sum 1 < k ≤ n of (1/n)/(k/n) < n * int 1/n < t < 1 (here we use that n > 1) of 1/t = n * ( ln(1) - ln(1/n) ) = n*ln(n)
dang you're quick good job. i wish we had a LaTex embedd somehow so it woulda been a lot easier to read tho
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
dang you're quick good job. i wish we had a LaTex embedd somehow so it woulda been a lot easier to read tho
Thanks. Yeah, I know it reads like ass, but I was too lazy to externally LaTeX it, sorry.
 
planetoftheapescel

planetoftheapescel

Banned
-
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Posts
88
Hi I'm mentally retarded and barely able to grasp high school math, when I approach things like linear algebra and imaginary numbers how do I mentally approach it? Is linear algebra just a description of something's position on a 2d plane so I can visualise it and are imaginary numbers making up theoretical numbers for seemingly ridiculous equations so they work, or am I grasping it wrong? wtf is mathematics even?
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
Hi I'm mentally retarded and barely able to grasp high school math, when I approach things like linear algebra and imaginary numbers how do I mentally approach it? Is linear algebra just a description of something's position on a 2d plane so I can visualise it and are imaginary numbers making up theoretical numbers for seemingly ridiculous equations so they work, or am I grasping it wrong? wtf is mathematics even?
The beauty of the more fundamental mathematical concepts (such as linear algebra and complex numbers) is that there are plethorae of ways to construe them. While imaginary numbers were initially indeed conceived to solve cubics (casus irreducibilis) there are -- dare I say -- better ways of thinking about complex numbers. One POV I really like is the following one.

In essence, complex numbers are just 2d vectors with a notion of multiplication (which, unlike the inner product, yields another 2d vector). This notion of multiplication is nice, because it geometrically encapsulates rotations. That said, your description of complex numbers is no less wrong (except that I would argue that the equations they solve aren't "ridiculuous" but details) than the one I just offered.

Your description of linear algebra feels a bit barebones to me, but that's probably because I know a lot more linear algebra than you do. As for delineating mathematics, mathematics is one of those disiplines that's hard to fully capture in words. Philosphy would be another such discipline.

TL;DR these questions are frankly hard to answer.
 
NoBitches

NoBitches

Greycel
Joined
May 17, 2022
Posts
73
PLEASE, post a math problem that is simple enough for me to solve to feel smart BUT not too hard that I can't solve it.
Heres a fun problem that even someone who doesn't know too much could solve

Take a number such as 128916 (though it works for any whole number)

Add up the digits 1+2+8+9+1+6=27

If the total is less then 9 it is not a multiple of 9, if it is 9 then you know its a multiple of 9, if its more you add up the digits again

In this case 27>9 so we add the digits again (2+7)=9 which proves it is a multiple of 9

The question is how do you prove why this process works?

Hint 1 You can express a number such as: 123 = 100+20+3

Hint 2
1/9=0 remainder 1
10/9=1 remainder 1
100/9=10 remainder 1
ect....


Hint 3

If the total remainder is equal to 9 or any multiple of 9 then you have proven it is a multiple of 9, since it would have no remainder


Answer

Simple Case:
Answer take a number 1323

We can express it as 1000+300+20+3

1000/9= something remainder 1
300/9= something remainder 3
20/9= something remainder 2
3/9= something remainder 3

1+3+2+3=9 is the remainder, since its remainder is 9 that essentially means it has 0 remainder since we are dividing by 9

Extended Case:

Take a number 128196

We can express it as 100000+20000+8000+100+90+6

100000/9= something remainder 1
20000/9= something remainder 2
8000/9= something remainder 8
100/9= something remainder 1
90/9= something remainder 9 (I know it should be 0 but you can technically think of it as remainder 9 since they are equivalent)
6/9= something remainder 6

1+2+8+1+9+6=27 is the remainder is more then 9 we must do it again

Take 27
We can express it as 20+7

20/9= something remainder 2
7/9= something remainder 7
2+7=9 is the remainder which proves that 27 is a multiple of 9

Since we got a remainder of 27 for 128196 and we know 27 is a multiple of 9 that means that 128196 is a multiple of 9, since its remainder is a multiple of 9 (making it 0)
 
Last edited:
C

CopingForBrutality

Officer
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Posts
564
Heres a fun problem that even someone who doesn't know too much could solve

Take a number such as 128916 (though it works for any whole number)

Add up the digits 1+2+8+9+1+6=27

If the total is less then 9 it is not a multiple of 9, if it is 9 then you know its a multiple of 9, if its more you add up the digits again

In this case 27>9 so we add the digits again (2+7)=9 which proves it is a multiple of 9

The question is how do you prove why this process works?

Hint 1 You can express a number such as: 123 = 100+20+3

Hint 2
1/9=0 remainder 1
10/9=1 remainder 1
100/9=10 remainder 1
ect....


Hint 3

If the total remainder is equal to 9 or any multiple of 9 then you have proven it is a multiple of 9, since it would have no remainder


Answer

Simple Case:
Answer take a number 1323

We can express it as 1000+300+20+3

1000/9= something remainder 1
300/9= something remainder 3
20/9= something remainder 2
3/9= something remainder 3

1+3+2+3=9 is the remainder, since its remainder is 9 that essentially means it has 0 remainder since we are dividing by 9

Extended Case:

Take a number 128196

We can express it as 100000+20000+8000+100+90+6

100000/9= something remainder 1
20000/9= something remainder 2
8000/9= something remainder 8
100/9= something remainder 1
90/9= something remainder 9 (I know it should be 0 but you can technically think of it as remainder 9 since they are equivalent)
6/9= something remainder 6

1+2+8+1+9+6=27 is the remainder is more then 9 we must do it again

Take 27
We can express it as 20+7

20/9= something remainder 2
7/9= something remainder 7
2+7=9 is the remainder which proves that 27 is a multiple of 9

Since we got a remainder of 27 for 128196 and we know 27 is a multiple of 9 that means that 128196 is a multiple of 9, since its remainder is a multiple of 9 (making it 0)

N digit number can be written in base 10 notation as

A * 10^(n-1) + B * 10^(n-2) + .. + X * 10^9

We know that 10 === 1(mod 9), this also works for 10^k and can be written as 10^k === 1(mod 9), use mathematical induction to prove it, will cut it short and skip

This rule can be used to reduce our equation to

A * 1 + B * 1 + .. + X * 1

Which means that the sum of original number is congruent to the sum of its digits mod 9, if the number is large you can just reapply the rule as the property holds in each step
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
N digit number can be written in base 10 notation as

A * 10^(n-1) + B * 10^(n-2) + .. + X * 10^9

We know that 10 === 1(mod 9), this also works for 10^k and can be written as 10^k === 1(mod 9), use mathematical induction to prove it, will cut it short and skip

This rule can be used to reduce our equation to

A * 1 + B * 1 + .. + X * 1

Which means that the sum of original number is congruent to the sum of its digits mod 9, if the number is large you can just reapply the rule as the property holds in each step
In essence this, altho your notation is somewhat sloppy (e.g., using A thru X instead of indexed variables) and you haven't argued why this procedure actually decreases your number at every step (so long as it has at least two digits anyways) altho this is pretty obvious.
The question is how do you prove why this process works?
For those interested, this process is called taking the digital root btw.
 
C

CopingForBrutality

Officer
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Posts
564
In essence this, altho your notation is somewhat sloppy (e.g., using A thru X instead of indexed variables) and you haven't argued why this procedure actually decreases your number at every step (so long as it has at least two digits anyways) altho this is pretty obvious.

For those interested, this process is called taking the digital root btw.
yea fair enough, defs could've been expanded on and more neat, thanks for the feedback
 
C

CopingForBrutality

Officer
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Posts
564
Let a,b,c be rational numbers. Prove that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational if and only if a = b = c = 0.

Bonus (much harder): Let a,b,c,d be rational numbers. Prove that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) + d*sqrt(7) is rational if and only if a = b = c = d = 0.
Unfortunately, I don't think so. The problem I see is with the following step:

In general, the sum of two irrational numbers can be rational (e.g., add π to 4 - π). I wouldn't know how the prove the aforementioned step (from the smaller cases). If you have an idea, however, I'd love to hear it.
Coming back to this, can we prove it from contradiction, would this be a valid contradiction statement?

"There exists non-zero values for a, b, c such that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational",

we make the assumption a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) = r where r is non-zero and rational,

when we arrive to the contradiction we could say it must be that a = b = c = 0.

Unsure if that contradiction statement is valid or proving it along those lines. The other way I think is using is using matrices but I can't remember it, been so long since I've used them
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
"There exists non-zero values for a, b, c such that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational",

we make the assumption a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) = r where r is non-zero and rational,

when we arrive to the contradiction we could say it must be that a = b = c = 0.
This is correct (and even a good starting point) altho you cannot assume that r is nonzero. That said, it is just that, a starting point.
The other way I think is using is using matrices but I can't remember it, been so long since I've used them
It's indeed possible to prove this utilizing matrices, altho it's somewhat overkill in this case. For the bonus question, however...
 
General Alek

General Alek

2nd Incel Founding Father, still alive in Toronto
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 22, 2023
Posts
10,704
god, this was humiliating
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
yea fair enough, defs could've been expanded on and more neat, thanks for the feedback
I basically said what I did because I was too lazy to write up my own answer and your answer contained the essential bit anyways, so I essentially just expanded on your answer. Thanks for reacting positively to my unasked for feedback btw.
 
NoBitches

NoBitches

Greycel
Joined
May 17, 2022
Posts
73
Im actually suprised how many people are interested in maths here, I didn't expect to see so many high iq cel
 
C

CopingForBrutality

Officer
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Posts
564
This is correct (and even a good starting point) altho you cannot assume that r is nonzero.
I assume it's because its what we're trying to get to?

Continuing from what I wrote earlier, we square both sides to get (a*sqrt(2)+ b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5))^2 = r^2.

Expanded, this is 2ab*sqrt(6) + 2ac*sqrt(10) + 2bc*sqrt(15) + 2a^2 + 3b^2 + 5c^2 + 2ab*sqrt(6) + 2ac*sqrt(10) + 2bc*sqrt(15),

simplifying we get 2ab*sqrt(6) + 2ac*sqrt(10) + 2bc*sqrt(15) + 2a^2 + 3b^2 + 5c^2 = r^2.

r^2 is rational because r is rational, this equation implies that the sum of rational numbers 2a^2, 3b^2, and 5c^2, and the sum of irrational numbers 2ab*sqrt(6), 2ac*sqrt(10), and 2bc*sqrt(15), must also be rational. We know that 2a^2, 3b^2, and 5c^2 and its sum is rational.

However, for any rational number x, the product of an irrational number y and x is always irrational, unless if y is zero. Thus, for the irrational terms 2ab*sqrt(6), 2ac*sqrt(10), and 2bc*sqrt(15) to combine to a rational sum, each of the coefficients a, b, and c must be zero. This means that a = b = c = 0, contradicting our initial assumption which was that a, b, and c are non-zero. We can simply input 0 to prove the other side of the "iff" part.

Therefore this means that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational if and only if a = b = c = 0.
It's indeed possible to prove this utilizing matrices, altho it's somewhat overkill in this case. For the bonus question, however...
I think using the properties of linear independence would be suffice for this problem, since you cant express it as a combination of one using rational constants it is therefore linear independent and linear independence signifies that all the variables is equal to 0, thus a = b = c = d = 0. Is the formal proof along the lines of this logic?
 
C

CopingForBrutality

Officer
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Posts
564
I basically said what I did because I was too lazy to write up my own answer and your answer contained the essential bit anyways, so I essentially just expanded on your answer. Thanks for reacting positively to my unasked for feedback btw.
all good was not even sure i did the problem right
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
I assume it's because its what we're trying to get to?
No. The statement you're trying to prove is "if a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational, then a = b = c = 0". By way of contradiction, you therefore assume that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational (say r) for some rational a & b & c not all zero. It's (at this stage) not clear that our hypothetical a & b & c cannot result in r = 0.
Continuing from what I wrote earlier, we square both sides to get (a*sqrt(2)+ b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5))^2 = r^2.
This is unfortuantely not the right approach.
Expanded, this is 2ab*sqrt(6) + 2ac*sqrt(10) + 2bc*sqrt(15) + 2a^2 + 3b^2 + 5c^2 + 2ab*sqrt(6) + 2ac*sqrt(10) + 2bc*sqrt(15),
You accidently wrote every cross term twice here, altho you corrected this immediately afterwards.
Thus, for the irrational terms 2ab*sqrt(6), 2ac*sqrt(10), and 2bc*sqrt(15) to combine to a rational sum, each of the coefficients a, b, and c must be zero.
This does not hold. If this logic were to suffice, then you could've applied this logic to the original a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) instead and saved yourself some hassle. Here's why this logic doesn't work -- by your logic, since each of a*sqrt(5) and b*φ (φ being the golden ratio) is irrational, the only way they can combine to yield a rational number is if a = b = 0; however, 2*φ - 1*sqrt(5) = 1, so this example disproves your assertion.
 
C

CopingForBrutality

Officer
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Posts
564
No. The statement you're trying to prove is "if a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational, then a = b = c = 0". By way of contradiction, you therefore assume that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational (say r) for some rational a & b & c not all zero. It's (at this stage) not clear that our hypothetical a & b & c cannot result in r = 0.

This is unfortuantely not the right approach.

You accidently wrote every cross term twice here, altho you corrected this immediately afterwards.

This does not hold. If this logic were to suffice, then you could've applied this logic to the original a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) instead and saved yourself some hassle. Here's why this logic doesn't work -- by your logic, since each of a*sqrt(5) and b*φ (φ being the golden ratio) is irrational, the only way they can combine to yield a rational number is if a = b = 0; however, 2*φ - 1*sqrt(5) = 1, so this example disproves your assertion.
Brutal counter-example, how would you solve it starting from here then?
"There exists non-zero values for a, b, c such that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational",

we make the assumption a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) = r where r is rational
 
Ahnfeltia

Ahnfeltia

3254011055738
★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2022
Posts
3,109
Brutal counter-example, how would you solve it starting from here then?
Hint: rearrange before squaring.
Square both sides of a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) = r - c*sqrt(5). If you do, you'll see that you've reduced the total number of square roots from three to two. Rearranging to get both square roots on the same side (and everything else on the other side) and squaring again will bring you down to only one square root -- a well-known case.
 
C

CopingForBrutality

Officer
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Posts
564
Hint: rearrange before squaring.
Square both sides of a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) = r - c*sqrt(5). If you do, you'll see that you've reduced the total number of square roots from three to two. Rearranging to get both square roots on the same side (and everything else on the other side) and squaring again will bring you down to only one square root -- a well-known case.
:feelsokman:
 
NoBitches

NoBitches

Greycel
Joined
May 17, 2022
Posts
73
Let a,b,c be rational numbers. Prove that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) is rational if and only if a = b = c = 0.

Bonus (much harder): Let a,b,c,d be rational numbers. Prove that a*sqrt(2) + b*sqrt(3) + c*sqrt(5) + d*sqrt(7) is rational if and only if a = b = c = d = 0.
I think you solve this by proving that sqrt(2), sqrt(3), sqrt(5), sqrt(7) are linearly independent

This means that

There is no a,b,c ∈ ℚ such that :
sqrt(2)= a*sqrt(3)+b*sqrt(5)+c*sqrt(7)
sqrt(3)= a*sqrt(2)+b*sqrt(5)+c*sqrt(7)
sqrt(5)= a*sqrt(3)+b*sqrt(2)+c*sqrt(7)
sqrt(7)= a*sqrt(3)+b*sqrt(5)+c*sqrt(2)


We can recall that:
Rational* irational=irational (So long as the rational is no 0 so eg( 0*sqrt(3)=0, but for anything else it would be irational)

irational+irational=Can be irational or rational
sqrt(5)+-sqrt(5)=0 (Rational) [It requires you to be able to create sqrt(5) from sqrt(2),sqrt(3),sqrt(7) which is impossible for this to happen]
sqrt(5)+ sqrt(3)= Irrational

However for it to form a rational number it would have to linearly dependent, since it would need to be able to create it (If that makes sence)
 

Similar threads

AsiaCel
Replies
14
Views
547
Chudpreet
Chudpreet
Shaktiman
Replies
40
Views
2K
curryceldesi
curryceldesi
hierophant
Discussion Of responsibility
Replies
1
Views
253
Eremetic
Eremetic
Eremetic
Replies
5
Views
297
3000showers
3000showers

Users who are viewing this thread

  • shape1
    shape2
    shape3
    shape4
    shape7
    shape8
    Top