I don't think there's a fail-safe general recipe for determining limit points. You need to play around with the set at hand and see if you can say something sensible. In the case at hand, you should be able to come up with a conjecture. To prove it, you need to estimate a little.
I apologize but I do not know latex. I mean it is evident that that the set goes to zero pretty quickly. I do not know how to go about showing that this is the only limit point though or determining if it is.
So, the numbers you have are all positive, right? And when you say "it goes to zero pretty quickly" the intuition is: no matter what m is the quotient F_m / F_n is very small since m < n. Can you quantify that?
In other words: can you give an upper bound of F_m / F_n in terms of n and m?
The first term (m=1 and n=2) would be our upper bound because 1 is the smallest difference we can have between n and m and therefore n=2 is the smallest denominator we can have.
Yes, that's right. Now try to adapt this idea to show that there are only finitely many quotients that are larger than any given positive epsilon. Do you see what this would give?
So, you've essentially convinced yourself that 0 is an accumulation point and now you should make the idea that no other one can be an accumulation point precise. To achieve this, look at the fractions and estimate them from above (by making the numerator larger and the denominator slightly smaller). This should give you a good enough bound to show what I asserted earlier on.
It's getting late here, so I should go to bed now. I'm pretty confident that you'll tackle that problem. Good luck and see you around!
it is very good to read and understand the underlying concepts. I read the first two sections and have hopefully clearly inderstood the motivation for Axiom of extension and axiom of specification
@ymar Can you give us the title of the doctoral dissertation?
:Not to be confused with a stationary point where f(x) = 0.
In mathematics, a fixed point (sometimes shortened to fixpoint, also known as an invariant point) of a function is a point that is mapped to itself by the function. A set of fixed points is sometimes called a fixed set. That is to say, c is a fixed point of the function f(x) if and only if f(c) = c.
For example, if f is defined on the real numbers by
:\ f(x) = x^2 - 3 x + 4,
then 2 is a fixed point of f, because f(2) = 2.
Not all functions have fixed points: for example, if f is a function defined on the real numbers as f(x) =...
The only package I installed, I put the file somewhere in a MikTeX folder and then just put \usepackage in my header. And that is the extent of my knowledge of installing packages :D
! LaTeX Error: File `exercises.sty' not found.Type X to quit or <RETURN> to proceed,or enter new name. (Default extension: sty)Enter file name:! Emergency stop.<read > \title
I was given a weird problem that I don't understand. It states something along the lines of I have a pet with a head of 16 cm, a tail of 16 cm + 1/4 the size of the body(trunk) and the trunk is equal to the sum of the head and the tail. Isn't this recursive?
Where is your current latex file which you are making is the working directory....now place the exercise.sty in tis folder.....not only this all the other files which came with your excersise should be placed here
now What ever Sivaram has sent you...put all those files in one directory.....now work in that directory..ie place the current latex file you are making in that directory
make sure your file name is same as that of the file name given by Sive...take a back up of it...then open it and remove the matter in it and start typing your matter
Hello everyone! Does anyone have a link to your discussion to enable mathjax on meta? I can find the mathjax-on-main discussion. Or did you get mathjax support simultaneously for both sites? On physics.SE we have mathjax on the main site but not on meta, and we want to see if its easy to acquire...
What are you talking about? You click and hold on the blue "render mathjax" link, drag it to your bookmarks bar, and then let go. A bookmark for "render mathjax" will be created, and every time you click it your browser will turn any LaTeX inside dollar signs into the actual symbols. What part of this are you having problems with?
Also, just because someone links to an educational establishment doesn't mean they are affiliated with it. You'll notice the url is for someone named "robjohn," who happens to correspond to that orange mean-square avatar at the top right of the chatroom (currently idle).
@Ilya Might be useful. Now I understand what they mean: probably my list of minor complaints with my body has become significantly longer in the last few months
Now, no fun. I should sleep today, or not attend classes tommorrow. Looking at the consequences of not attending classes, it occurs to me that I must sleep. Bye people.
I'm new to Galois Theory, trying to pick it up. I'm trying to determine the Galois group of $f(X)=X^n-t$ over $\mathbb{C}(t)$, for $t$ transcendental over $\mathbb{C}$. I think it's obvious that the Galois group of $f$ over $\mathbb{C}$ is cyclic of order $n$, but I'm not sure how to think of the Galois group of $f$ over $\mathbb{C}(t)$.
I want to say that the Galois group of $f=X^n-t$ over $\mathbb{C}(t)$ is trivial since $1/t^n$ lies in $\mathbb{C}(t)$, as do all of the $n$-th roots of unity. Can someone tell me if I am right?