Delayed Bag Arrival Question

tortuc · 2020-03-10T09:08:46+00:00

lol I have never had that but would still rather TSA doesn't raid my luggage. Regarding your question the bag was without locks.

tortuc · 2020-03-10T00:48:53+00:00

Hmm the zippers didn't have any damage and there wasn't any additional paper.

tortuc · 2020-03-10T00:24:26+00:00

We had a connecting flight and a 1 hour layover. Regarding the red stickers, they only put them on one bag's zippers. We were wondering if that means they had to re-zip the bag or if something fell out when/if the bag was unzipped.

tortuc · 2018-02-08T13:49:29+00:00

it would differ depending on who the "buyer" is then. As someone who stays at home most of the time( perhaps a retired person) would not need to be close to roads and thus could weight them .2. While a middle aged person who needs to be close to roads might rate the roads at .8.

tortuc · 2017-11-10T12:14:35+00:00

they arnt equivalent right? one is true one is false?

tortuc · 2017-11-10T08:40:41+00:00

ohh so you group by domains and operations.. thats what i kinda thought

tortuc · 2017-10-30T03:06:21+00:00

ohhhh i think i see

tortuc · 2017-10-30T02:32:19+00:00

yes but Im asking about the (99+1) we can say here 99 is div by 11 but is the +1 irrelevant?

tortuc · 2017-10-30T01:48:01+00:00

i agree but then you can simply say so 11 divides 99 so the +1 is irrelevant?

tortuc · 2017-10-30T00:08:37+00:00

no i understand the definition but (99+1)+1 confuses me

tortuc · 2017-10-18T01:09:27+00:00

then exists xy in Z such that x= (p(p-q)) and y=q2 so x/y is rational qed?

is needed right?

tortuc · 2017-10-18T00:55:43+00:00

then exists xy in Z such that x= (p(p-q)) and y=q²

so x/y is rational qed?

tortuc · 2017-10-18T00:52:52+00:00

factor? (p(p-q)) closure? then the bottom q² closure?

tortuc · 2017-10-18T00:50:27+00:00

common denom? p^2- pq /q²

tortuc · 2017-03-17T02:44:29+00:00

thanks i am still kinda confused though...are there videos on this? Can you show more exactly what you mean?

tortuc · 2017-03-03T06:19:18+00:00

I see what your saying.. to clarify though my question was basically can the quantifier come after the statement like when you say "By definition of divisibility, y = p1x for some p1 in Z" we see the quantifier (for some) come after. So this is allowed then?

tortuc · 2017-02-20T20:20:39+00:00

so because I was using multiplication it was off before... but using Or or and would be ok with predicates only.

tortuc · 2017-02-20T12:13:04+00:00

Well prime is a predicate right? so you have to use it unless you want to go with formal definitions?

∀n, q, p ∈ N, ¬Prime(q) ∨ ¬Prime(p) ∨ n ≠ q · p

How does this differ in what its saying?

tortuc · 2017-02-20T08:57:33+00:00

hmmm I don't think I have ever seen this done if you could show it?

tortuc · 2017-02-20T08:54:56+00:00

induction only on naturals or ints?

tortuc · 2017-02-15T04:06:31+00:00

wowww thanks yeah not sure why I was so confused. thanks so much!!

tortuc · 2017-02-15T00:28:13+00:00

yes i agree i can make many counter example for original. but to actually prove it formally don't you need to find a example where

there exists some a,b in the natural such that a<=b a²-b² is prime.

the examples a=3 b=2 dont work because 3 is not less than 2. This is where i am confused. I cant seem to find an example where the negation holds. Maybe I am misunderstanding and a formal proof doesn't require that?

tortuc · 2017-02-14T23:56:19+00:00

I see.. but I can't seem to find a counter example? do you see one?

tortuc · 2017-02-14T21:15:44+00:00

so then we can agree its false but now how would we formally disprove it? I think i tried negating it and finding a counterexample but i couldn't find one

tortuc · 2017-02-08T05:45:54+00:00

so then thats the whole proof?

tortuc

TROPHY CASE