Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
Classifieds
News
Localband
Shows
Show Pics
Polls
OT Threads
Other News
Movies
VideoGames
Videos
TV
Sports
Gear
/r/
Food
New Thread
New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
login
New site? Maybe some day.
Username:
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Select Color
orange
orange-red
crimson
red
firebrick
dark red
green
limegreen
teal
silver
sea-green
deeppink
tomato
coral
purple
indigo
burlywood
sandy brown
sienna
chocolate
FONT
XXSmall
XSmall
Small
Medium
Large
XL
XXL
:DG:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Char
†
‡
‰
♠
♣
♥
♦
‾
←
↑
→
↓
™
–
—
¡
¢
£
¤
¥
¦
§
¨
©
ª
«
¬
®
¯
°
±
²
³
´
µ
¶
·
¸
¹
º
»
¼
½
¾
¿
À
Á
Â
Ã
Ä
Å
Æ
Ç
È
É
Ê
Ë
Ì
Í
Î
Ï
Ð
Ñ
Ò
Ó
Ô
Õ
Ö
×
Ø
Ù
Ú
Û
Ü
Ý
Þ
ß
à
á
â
ã
ä
å
æ
ç
è
é
ê
ë
ì
í
î
ï
ð
ñ
ò
ó
ô
õ
ö
÷
ø
ù
ú
û
ü
ý
þ
ÿ
b
i
u
add:
url
image
video
(
?
)
Message:
you are ab-using [QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:449071"]I'm going to take a crack at this... number 1: Let's say k=2, that means 3 numbers must be chosen from the set (1,2,3,4). Before we choose them, the following values of y would have x as a multiple: if y=1 then x=2 OR x=3 OR x=4. if y=2 then x=4. So no matter if the three numbers we choose are 1,2,3 or 1,2,4 or 1,3,4 or 2,3,4, you can always find at least one pair in those three numbers where one can be x and one can be y according to the equations in the above two sentences. Let's say k=3, that means 4 numbers must be chosen from the set (1,2,3,4,5,6): if y=1 then x=2 OR x=3 OR x=4 OR x=5 OR x=6. if y=2 then x=4 OR x=6. if y=3 then x=6. So no matter if the four numbers picked are 1,2,3,4 or 1,2,3,5 or 1,2,3,6, or 1,2,4,5 or 1,2,4,6 or 1,2,5,6 or 1,3,4,5 or 1,3,4,6 or 1,4,5,6, or 2,3,4,5 or 2,3,4,6 or 2,3,5,6 or 3,4,5,6 you can always find at least one pair in those four numbers where one can be x and one can be y according to the equations in the above three sentences. As we can see, going over the lower numbers like 1 and 2 each time that we increase k is a bit redundant, since those scenarios have already been proven. Clearly, the only questionable area to be solved are the new numbers that appear at the top of the list everytime k is increased by one. With that in mind: If you take k+1 numbers out of a list of consecutive integers from 1 to 2k, and try to take the highest numbers possible, you end up taking the top half of the list as well as the next lowest integer, which HAS to be k. Since k is always going to be half of 2k, there is always a scenario where x is a multiple of the y. In otherwords, the sets we were looking at earlier could also be looked at as (1,k,3,2k), (1,2,k,4,5,2k), etc. No matter what k is, the fact that the list ends with 2k guarantees that one will always be a multiple of the other. I don't know if I'm wording this as a "proof" by the standards her math professor may set, but this is the logic behind solving the problem. Hope it helps...[/QUOTE]
UBB
enabled
. HTML
disabled
Spam Filtering
enabled
Icons: (click image to insert)
Show All
-
pop
[
default homepage
]
[
print
][
1:24:28pm Apr 28,2024
load time 0.01068 secs/10 queries]
[
search
]
[
refresh page
]