Math geeks only

Ghoulish Delight · 06-17-2008, 11:52 PM

- OR -

Yes, I am geeky enough to be kept awake at night by number theory

I need some formal proof help. Never my strong suit. I grasp the general concept, but when it comes to being properly formal and pedantic, I get a bit fuzzy.

What I'm struggling with now is whether a certain kind of deductive conclusion is permissable, or if I need more rigor.

What I'm trying to prove is that for any integer value of n > 2, n*7 < 10^(n-1).

It's certainly a true statement, but I'm trying to formalize it. The best I've come up with is to know that for the value n=3 it is true and that the expression on the left grows linearly while the expression on the right grown exponentially.

Is that sufficient proof? That given any 2 functions f and f` such that f(n) < f`(n) AND f grows linearly while f` grows exponentially, f(x) < f`(x) for all values > n?

Morrigoon · 06-18-2008, 12:21 AM

Not a math geek, but is 2 the absolute top of the non-qualifying values for n in this? I mean, short of testing it myself, is there any value of n=2.x that might also be disqualified?

Ghoulish Delight · 06-18-2008, 12:23 AM

I specified integer values only.

But to answer your question, yes. There is a non-integer value (that I'm ill equipped to work out at the moment) of n, between 2 and 3, for which n*7 = 10^(n-1). Below that value, the result is > 10^(n-1), above it, it's > 10^(n-1).

Morrigoon · 06-18-2008, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I specified integer values only.

Ah, that would be me forgetting that integer meant a whole number

(Proof that I'm not a math geek... now ask me the integer value that represents how many times I had to take algebra II in order to pass it. Hint: n>2)

Ghoulish Delight · 06-18-2008, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Ah, that would be me forgetting that integer meant a whole number

Just because this IS a number theory thread, I should point out that in most mathematic circles "whole numbers" consist of the positive integers (or the very similar "non negative integers" which also includes 0). So while whole numbers are indeed integers, an integer is not necessarily a whole number.

But in this particular case, we do happen to be dealing with only whole numbers.

Strangler Lewis · 06-18-2008, 12:30 AM

Doesn't it also work for zero?

Morrigoon · 06-18-2008, 12:34 AM

That wouldn't nullify the equation though. He's stating for all integer values greater than 2, but not addressing values 2 and under. Right?

Ghoulish Delight · 06-18-2008, 12:35 AM

Yes it does work for zero (7*0 = 0, 10^-1 = .1). However, I'm not concerned with any of the infinite other values of n may or may not work. All I'm interested in proving is that for intergers > 3, it's true. Anything else is irrelevant to the overall problem.

ETA: Thank you Mori, precisely.

Morrigoon · 06-18-2008, 12:39 AM

How about proving it with a curve? Does that do anything for you? I mean, demonstrating that one increases linearly while the other increases exponentially... a curve would demonstrate that, yes?

(ETA: I can't believe I have even this many posts in a math thread... did I mention n>2?)

Strangler Lewis · 06-18-2008, 12:48 AM

Then how much of a number theory problem is it?

Is "For all C > -40: 9/5 * C + 32 > C" a number theory problem?

06-17-2008, 11:52 PM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Math geeks only - OR - Yes, I am geeky enough to be kept awake at night by number theory I need some formal proof help. Never my strong suit. I grasp the general concept, but when it comes to being properly formal and pedantic, I get a bit fuzzy. What I'm struggling with now is whether a certain kind of deductive conclusion is permissable, or if I need more rigor. What I'm trying to prove is that for any integer value of n > 2, n*7 < 10^(n-1). It's certainly a true statement, but I'm trying to formalize it. The best I've come up with is to know that for the value n=3 it is true and that the expression on the left grows linearly while the expression on the right grown exponentially. Is that sufficient proof? That given any 2 functions f and f` such that f(n) < f`(n) AND f grows linearly while f` grows exponentially, f(x) < f`(x) for all values > n? __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

06-18-2008, 12:21 AM	#2
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Not a math geek, but is 2 the absolute top of the non-qualifying values for n in this? I mean, short of testing it myself, is there any value of n=2.x that might also be disqualified? __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

06-18-2008, 12:23 AM	#3
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I specified integer values only. But to answer your question, yes. There is a non-integer value (that I'm ill equipped to work out at the moment) of n, between 2 and 3, for which n7 = 10^(n-1). Below that value, the result is > 10^(n-1), above it, it's > 10^(n-1). __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ Last edited by Ghoulish Delight : 06-18-2008 at 12:29 AM.*
	Submit to Quotes

06-18-2008, 12:30 AM	#6
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Doesn't it also work for zero? __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

06-18-2008, 12:34 AM	#7
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	That wouldn't nullify the equation though. He's stating for all integer values greater than 2, but not addressing values 2 and under. Right? __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

06-18-2008, 12:35 AM	#8
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Yes it does work for zero (7*0 = 0, 10^-1 = .1). However, I'm not concerned with any of the infinite other values of n may or may not work. All I'm interested in proving is that for intergers > 3, it's true. Anything else is irrelevant to the overall problem. ETA: Thank you Mori, precisely. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

06-18-2008, 12:39 AM	#9
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	How about proving it with a curve? Does that do anything for you? I mean, demonstrating that one increases linearly while the other increases exponentially... a curve would demonstrate that, yes? (ETA: I can't believe I have even this many posts in a math thread... did I mention n>2?) __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

06-18-2008, 12:48 AM	#10
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Then how much of a number theory problem is it? Is "For all C > -40: 9/5 * C + 32 > C" a number theory problem? __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes