Re: Elementary Theory of Numbers
- From: William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 00:03:52 -0700
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, quasi wrote:
<edgar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Well, if we're not going to be strict, take n = 0.
<quasi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:I guess I was a little too strict.
<marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, conrad wrote:
Show that if n is a positive integer andThat is false for n = 1.
x is a real number larger than -1,
then (1 + x)^n > 1 + xn
For n = 1, the inequality is an equality.
The strict inequality holds for n > 1.
Did you check x=0 on that?
.
- References:
- Elementary Theory of Numbers
- From: conrad
- Re: Elementary Theory of Numbers
- From: William Elliot
- Re: Elementary Theory of Numbers
- From: quasi
- Re: Elementary Theory of Numbers
- From: G. A. Edgar
- Re: Elementary Theory of Numbers
- From: quasi
- Elementary Theory of Numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: tomic polynomial: CONJECTURE 3
- Next by Date: Re: CERN concern
- Previous by thread: Re: Elementary Theory of Numbers
- Next by thread: Re: Elementary Theory of Numbers
- Index(es):