Math thread

Just for fun I tried it with -6 and it doesn’t work.
1600301587943.jpeg
 
Show or disprove the following:
FOR ALL x (EXISTS y (-Q(x, (f(y)) AND (P(x) -> EXISTS y R(y)) AND P(x)) <=> FORALL x EXISTS y ((-Q(x, f(y)) AND R(y)) AND P(x))
LATEX MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT

Euclid.PNG

I like this proof of Euclid's Lemma a lot, especially as you can then it use to prove Unique Prime Factorisation really quickly. Source. Where a and b are elements of some set A, in general, the statement a | b means there's some c in A such that b = a*c and the statement a ∤ b is the unique statement that is true if and only if a | b is false. You're going to want to familiarise yourself with Euclidean Division if you aren't up to speed on number theory.
 
Simple equation
6 (3-x) + 2 (-2) (4x-2) = 14x - 6 (x-3) + 2
 
Back