bd7173fa
From: b.karzeddin@yahoo.com
> In article , bassam karzeddin
> wrote:
> >Hi every body
> >
> >I would like to ask a question of three parts:
> >
> > a)we say that two is least integer that is greater
> than sqrt(three)
> > the question is what is the least rational number
> that is greater
> > than sqrt(three)?
>
> There is none. If sqrt(3) < x then there is a
> rational r with
> sqrt(3) < r < x.
>
> For example sqrt(3) = 1.7320508075688772935... so the
> rational sequence
> 2
> 1.8
> 1.74
> 1.733
> 1.7321
> and so on ...
>
> and so on converges to sqrt(3) and will eventually be
> smaller than any
> particular x, with sqrt(3) < x.
>
> The problem is the statement `the least rational
> number'. Just being able
> to say the words doesn't mean it exists. Kind of like
> an oxymoron,
> calling something `military intelligence' doesn't
> make it smart.
>
> >
> > b)what is the absolute value of{a+b*(-1)^(1/2)}
>
> One usually writes i for sqrt(-1). |a + b*i| is
> defined to be
> sqrt(a^2+b^2) = distance from the orgin to a+bi in
> the complex plane.
>
> >
> > c)can we present the form
> {a+b*(-1)^(1/2)}^[sqrt(three)]
> > in another similar form,say, (A+Bi)
>
> Yes, but it takes a bit of work. It is defined to be
> exp(sqrt(3)*log(a+bi))
> where log(a+bi) = ln r + i (theta + 2*n*pi) for n =
> 0, +/- 1, +/- 2, ...
> and a + bi = r e^(i theta).
> --
> Steven Bellenot
> http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot
> Department of Mathematics
> real.email@line.below
> Florida State University bellenot at
> math.fsu.edu
> Tallahassee, FL 32306-4510 USA +1 (850) 644-7189
> (FAX: 4053)
>
>
Are those old answers (in 2004) to my naive question reasonable or meaningful
nowadays? wonder!
I am Just checking if changes of attitudes had occurred in the last 13 years
BKK
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
