mayratrejorod3
21.01.2020 •
Mathematics
Prove that if n is a perfect square then n + 2 is not a perfect square
Solved
Show answers
More tips
- S Style and Beauty How to Braid Hair with a Plaiting Machine: Tips and Recommendations...
- B Business and Finance How to Create a Business Plan? Your Ultimate Guide...
- F Food and Cooking Deflope: What is it and how does it work?...
- F Food and Cooking Why Doesn t the Confirmation Link Come to Email?...
- F Food and Cooking How to Get Reconfirmation of Registration?...
- S Science and Technology Discovering the Anatomy of an LCD TV Screen...
- H Health and Medicine What You Need to Know About Nasal Congestion in Infants: Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment...
- A Auto and Moto What is the Average Lifespan of an Engine in a Car?...
- C Computers and Internet Make Money Online: Secrets and Essential Ways...
- A Auto and Moto How Can Parking Sensors Help Drivers?...
Answers on questions: Mathematics
- M Mathematics Pls pls help i will give brainliest...
- M Mathematics Please help! (Extra points but please be correct)...
- M Mathematics How to find mean median mode and rang in math when doing measerment...
- S Spanish How do i say hello sir in spanish...
- E English Choose the response that shows the commas in the appropriate. They wanted to ride horses go hiking and explore the cave. a. They wanted to ride horses, go hiking,...
- M Mathematics Compare the 5 in the thousands place to the 5 in the tenth place...
Ответ:
This statement can be proven by contradiction for (including the case where .)
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Step-by-step explanation:
Assume that the natural number is a perfect square. Then, (by the definition of perfect squares) there should exist a natural number () such that .
Assume by contradiction that is indeed a perfect square. Then there should exist another natural number such that .
Note, that since , . Since while , one can conclude that .
Keep in mind that both and are natural numbers. The minimum separation between two natural numbers is . In other words, if , then it must be true that .
Take the square of both sides, and the inequality should still be true. (To do so, start by multiplying both sides by and use the fact that to make the left-hand side .)
.
Expand the right-hand side using the binomial theorem:
.
.
However, recall that it was assumed that and . Therefore,
.
.
Subtract from both sides of the inequality:
.
.
Recall that was assumed to be a natural number. In other words, and must be an integer. Hence, the only possible value of would be .
Since could be equal , there's not yet a valid contradiction. To produce the contradiction and complete the proof, it would be necessary to show that just won't work as in the assumption.
If indeed , then . , which isn't a perfect square. That contradicts the assumption that if is a perfect square, would be a perfect square. Hence, by contradiction, one can conclude that
.
Note that to produce a more well-rounded proof, it would likely be helpful to go back to the beginning of the proof, and show that . Then one can assume without loss of generality that . In that case, the fact that is good enough to count as a contradiction.
Ответ:
Answer and Step-by-step explanation:
The correct answer choice would be to grind the solvent into smaller pieces.
When the solid is in smaller pieces, it would take less time for the dissolver to dissolve the smaller bits, since the pieces are smaller and take up less volume for the dissolver to go through.
With a bigger solid, the dissolver would just chip away at the solid before eventually dissolving the solid, although this could take some time.
#teamtrees #PAW (Plant And Water)