On Lame's Theorem

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I was trying to study Lame's theorem but I'm a little bit stuck on one specific step... I write here the theorem and the proof:




Lame's theorem:

using the Euclidean algorithm to find the greatest common divisor of two positive integers has number of divisions less than or equal five times the number of decimal digits in the minimum of the two integers.



Proof:

Let $a$ and $b$ be two positive integers where $a > b$.

Applying the Euclidean algorithm to find the greatest common divisor of two integers with $a = r_0$ and $b = r_1$, we get

$r_0 = r_1q_1+r_2$, $0≤r_2<r_1, $

$r_1 = r_2q_2+r_3$, $0≤r_3<r_2, $

. . .

$r_n-2 = r_n-1q_n-1+r_n$, $0≤r_n<r_n-1, $

$r_n-1 = r_nq_n$



Notice that each of the quotients $q_1, q_2, ..., q_n-1 $ are all greater than $1$ and $q_n ≥ 2$ and this is because $r_n < r_n-1.$



Thus we have



$r_n ≥ 1=f_2$,

$r_n-1 ≥ 2r_n ≥ 2f_2 = f_3$,

$r_n-2 ≥ r_n-1 + r_n ≥ f_3 + f_2 = f_4$,

$r_n-3 ≥ r_n-2 + r_n-1 ≥ f_4 + f_3 = f_5$,

...

$r_2 ≥ r_3 + r_4 ≥ f_n-1 + f_n-2 = f_n$,

$b = r_1 ≥ r_2 + r_3 ≥ f_n + f_n-1 = f_n+1$.



Thus notice that $b≥f_n+1$.
By a Lemma I don't report here, we have $f_n+1>α^n−1$ for $n>2$.
As a result, we have $b > α^n−1$.



Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$



we see that



$log_10b > (n − 1)/5$.



Thus we have



$(n - 1)< 5 log_10b$



Now let $b$ has $k$ decimal digits. As a result, we have $b < 10^k$ and thus $log_10b < k$. Hence we conclude that $(n − 1) < 5k$.

Since $k$ is an integer, we conclude that $n ≤ 5k$.




What I really don't understand is just this line:




Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$,




My question is: why $frac15$ has been chosen?



Where does it come from?
Has it been chosen because the theorem says:




[...]less than or equal five times [...]
?




Thank you







share|cite|improve this question






















  • Well, you can just compute it with a calculator. There are ways to make the calculation more tractable by hand but I doubt there is a way to avoid a decent amount of calculation since $log_10alpha$ is only slightly larger than $1/5$.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 26 at 21:29










  • But I’d like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
    – Huseyin78
    Aug 26 at 21:33










  • Well, have you tried reading the rest of the proof? No one will be able to answer this for you unless you provide the rest of the proof.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 26 at 21:35










  • In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
    – Saucy O'Path
    Aug 26 at 21:38










  • What is Lamé's theorem?
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 27 at 8:48














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I was trying to study Lame's theorem but I'm a little bit stuck on one specific step... I write here the theorem and the proof:




Lame's theorem:

using the Euclidean algorithm to find the greatest common divisor of two positive integers has number of divisions less than or equal five times the number of decimal digits in the minimum of the two integers.



Proof:

Let $a$ and $b$ be two positive integers where $a > b$.

Applying the Euclidean algorithm to find the greatest common divisor of two integers with $a = r_0$ and $b = r_1$, we get

$r_0 = r_1q_1+r_2$, $0≤r_2<r_1, $

$r_1 = r_2q_2+r_3$, $0≤r_3<r_2, $

. . .

$r_n-2 = r_n-1q_n-1+r_n$, $0≤r_n<r_n-1, $

$r_n-1 = r_nq_n$



Notice that each of the quotients $q_1, q_2, ..., q_n-1 $ are all greater than $1$ and $q_n ≥ 2$ and this is because $r_n < r_n-1.$



Thus we have



$r_n ≥ 1=f_2$,

$r_n-1 ≥ 2r_n ≥ 2f_2 = f_3$,

$r_n-2 ≥ r_n-1 + r_n ≥ f_3 + f_2 = f_4$,

$r_n-3 ≥ r_n-2 + r_n-1 ≥ f_4 + f_3 = f_5$,

...

$r_2 ≥ r_3 + r_4 ≥ f_n-1 + f_n-2 = f_n$,

$b = r_1 ≥ r_2 + r_3 ≥ f_n + f_n-1 = f_n+1$.



Thus notice that $b≥f_n+1$.
By a Lemma I don't report here, we have $f_n+1>α^n−1$ for $n>2$.
As a result, we have $b > α^n−1$.



Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$



we see that



$log_10b > (n − 1)/5$.



Thus we have



$(n - 1)< 5 log_10b$



Now let $b$ has $k$ decimal digits. As a result, we have $b < 10^k$ and thus $log_10b < k$. Hence we conclude that $(n − 1) < 5k$.

Since $k$ is an integer, we conclude that $n ≤ 5k$.




What I really don't understand is just this line:




Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$,




My question is: why $frac15$ has been chosen?



Where does it come from?
Has it been chosen because the theorem says:




[...]less than or equal five times [...]
?




Thank you







share|cite|improve this question






















  • Well, you can just compute it with a calculator. There are ways to make the calculation more tractable by hand but I doubt there is a way to avoid a decent amount of calculation since $log_10alpha$ is only slightly larger than $1/5$.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 26 at 21:29










  • But I’d like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
    – Huseyin78
    Aug 26 at 21:33










  • Well, have you tried reading the rest of the proof? No one will be able to answer this for you unless you provide the rest of the proof.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 26 at 21:35










  • In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
    – Saucy O'Path
    Aug 26 at 21:38










  • What is Lamé's theorem?
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 27 at 8:48












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I was trying to study Lame's theorem but I'm a little bit stuck on one specific step... I write here the theorem and the proof:




Lame's theorem:

using the Euclidean algorithm to find the greatest common divisor of two positive integers has number of divisions less than or equal five times the number of decimal digits in the minimum of the two integers.



Proof:

Let $a$ and $b$ be two positive integers where $a > b$.

Applying the Euclidean algorithm to find the greatest common divisor of two integers with $a = r_0$ and $b = r_1$, we get

$r_0 = r_1q_1+r_2$, $0≤r_2<r_1, $

$r_1 = r_2q_2+r_3$, $0≤r_3<r_2, $

. . .

$r_n-2 = r_n-1q_n-1+r_n$, $0≤r_n<r_n-1, $

$r_n-1 = r_nq_n$



Notice that each of the quotients $q_1, q_2, ..., q_n-1 $ are all greater than $1$ and $q_n ≥ 2$ and this is because $r_n < r_n-1.$



Thus we have



$r_n ≥ 1=f_2$,

$r_n-1 ≥ 2r_n ≥ 2f_2 = f_3$,

$r_n-2 ≥ r_n-1 + r_n ≥ f_3 + f_2 = f_4$,

$r_n-3 ≥ r_n-2 + r_n-1 ≥ f_4 + f_3 = f_5$,

...

$r_2 ≥ r_3 + r_4 ≥ f_n-1 + f_n-2 = f_n$,

$b = r_1 ≥ r_2 + r_3 ≥ f_n + f_n-1 = f_n+1$.



Thus notice that $b≥f_n+1$.
By a Lemma I don't report here, we have $f_n+1>α^n−1$ for $n>2$.
As a result, we have $b > α^n−1$.



Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$



we see that



$log_10b > (n − 1)/5$.



Thus we have



$(n - 1)< 5 log_10b$



Now let $b$ has $k$ decimal digits. As a result, we have $b < 10^k$ and thus $log_10b < k$. Hence we conclude that $(n − 1) < 5k$.

Since $k$ is an integer, we conclude that $n ≤ 5k$.




What I really don't understand is just this line:




Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$,




My question is: why $frac15$ has been chosen?



Where does it come from?
Has it been chosen because the theorem says:




[...]less than or equal five times [...]
?




Thank you







share|cite|improve this question














I was trying to study Lame's theorem but I'm a little bit stuck on one specific step... I write here the theorem and the proof:




Lame's theorem:

using the Euclidean algorithm to find the greatest common divisor of two positive integers has number of divisions less than or equal five times the number of decimal digits in the minimum of the two integers.



Proof:

Let $a$ and $b$ be two positive integers where $a > b$.

Applying the Euclidean algorithm to find the greatest common divisor of two integers with $a = r_0$ and $b = r_1$, we get

$r_0 = r_1q_1+r_2$, $0≤r_2<r_1, $

$r_1 = r_2q_2+r_3$, $0≤r_3<r_2, $

. . .

$r_n-2 = r_n-1q_n-1+r_n$, $0≤r_n<r_n-1, $

$r_n-1 = r_nq_n$



Notice that each of the quotients $q_1, q_2, ..., q_n-1 $ are all greater than $1$ and $q_n ≥ 2$ and this is because $r_n < r_n-1.$



Thus we have



$r_n ≥ 1=f_2$,

$r_n-1 ≥ 2r_n ≥ 2f_2 = f_3$,

$r_n-2 ≥ r_n-1 + r_n ≥ f_3 + f_2 = f_4$,

$r_n-3 ≥ r_n-2 + r_n-1 ≥ f_4 + f_3 = f_5$,

...

$r_2 ≥ r_3 + r_4 ≥ f_n-1 + f_n-2 = f_n$,

$b = r_1 ≥ r_2 + r_3 ≥ f_n + f_n-1 = f_n+1$.



Thus notice that $b≥f_n+1$.
By a Lemma I don't report here, we have $f_n+1>α^n−1$ for $n>2$.
As a result, we have $b > α^n−1$.



Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$



we see that



$log_10b > (n − 1)/5$.



Thus we have



$(n - 1)< 5 log_10b$



Now let $b$ has $k$ decimal digits. As a result, we have $b < 10^k$ and thus $log_10b < k$. Hence we conclude that $(n − 1) < 5k$.

Since $k$ is an integer, we conclude that $n ≤ 5k$.




What I really don't understand is just this line:




Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$,




My question is: why $frac15$ has been chosen?



Where does it come from?
Has it been chosen because the theorem says:




[...]less than or equal five times [...]
?




Thank you









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 27 at 12:24

























asked Aug 26 at 21:22









Huseyin78

1026




1026











  • Well, you can just compute it with a calculator. There are ways to make the calculation more tractable by hand but I doubt there is a way to avoid a decent amount of calculation since $log_10alpha$ is only slightly larger than $1/5$.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 26 at 21:29










  • But I’d like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
    – Huseyin78
    Aug 26 at 21:33










  • Well, have you tried reading the rest of the proof? No one will be able to answer this for you unless you provide the rest of the proof.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 26 at 21:35










  • In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
    – Saucy O'Path
    Aug 26 at 21:38










  • What is Lamé's theorem?
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 27 at 8:48
















  • Well, you can just compute it with a calculator. There are ways to make the calculation more tractable by hand but I doubt there is a way to avoid a decent amount of calculation since $log_10alpha$ is only slightly larger than $1/5$.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 26 at 21:29










  • But I’d like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
    – Huseyin78
    Aug 26 at 21:33










  • Well, have you tried reading the rest of the proof? No one will be able to answer this for you unless you provide the rest of the proof.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 26 at 21:35










  • In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
    – Saucy O'Path
    Aug 26 at 21:38










  • What is Lamé's theorem?
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 27 at 8:48















Well, you can just compute it with a calculator. There are ways to make the calculation more tractable by hand but I doubt there is a way to avoid a decent amount of calculation since $log_10alpha$ is only slightly larger than $1/5$.
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:29




Well, you can just compute it with a calculator. There are ways to make the calculation more tractable by hand but I doubt there is a way to avoid a decent amount of calculation since $log_10alpha$ is only slightly larger than $1/5$.
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:29












But I’d like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
– Huseyin78
Aug 26 at 21:33




But I’d like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
– Huseyin78
Aug 26 at 21:33












Well, have you tried reading the rest of the proof? No one will be able to answer this for you unless you provide the rest of the proof.
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:35




Well, have you tried reading the rest of the proof? No one will be able to answer this for you unless you provide the rest of the proof.
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:35












In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
– Saucy O'Path
Aug 26 at 21:38




In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
– Saucy O'Path
Aug 26 at 21:38












What is Lamé's theorem?
– Christian Blatter
Aug 27 at 8:48




What is Lamé's theorem?
– Christian Blatter
Aug 27 at 8:48










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Let's chase through the rest of the proof without using the line $log_10alpha>1/5$. So instead of writing $log_10b>(n-1)/5$, we'll just write $$log_10b>(n-1)log_10alpha.$$ Continuing through the rest of the algebra, we end up with $$n-1<k/log_10alpha.$$



So, this actually gives a more precise conclusion to the theorem: the number of steps $n$ is less than $1$ plus the number of decimal digits $k$ times the constant $C=1/log_10alpha$. If we now observe that $log_10alpha>1/5$ so $C<5$, we can conclude that $n$ is at most the number of decimal digits times $5$, which is the originally stated (but weaker) conclusion. It is natural to choose $5$ here since it is the smallest integer greater than $C$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
    – Huseyin78
    Aug 27 at 16:16

















up vote
0
down vote













You can easily expand out the polynomial
$(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    You can play around with things a bit too.



    Given $alpha=dfrac1+sqrt52$, it follows that



    beginalign
    alpha^2 &= alpha + 1 \
    alpha^3 &= alpha^2 + alpha \
    &= 2alpha + 1 \
    alpha^4 &= 2alpha^2 + alpha \
    &= 3alpha + 2 \
    alpha^5 &= 3alpha^2 + 2alpha \
    &= 5alpha + 3 \
    &> dfrac5+102+3 &textSince $sqrt 5 >2.$ \
    &> 10
    endalign



    So $alpha^5 > 10 implies 5 log_10alpha > 1 implies log_10alpha > dfrac 15.$



    A lot of problems can be solved by assuming that what you find out is useful and then going on to see what happens. He probably chose $dfrac 15$ because he found, using whatever method, that $log_10 alpha > dfrac 15$. He then just assumed that that was useful information and proceeded with the rest of the proof. If faith isn't a good enough reason, then just follow through out of curiosity to see what happens. Even if you fail, you now know more that you did before.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
      – Huseyin78
      Aug 27 at 12:25










    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2895532%2fon-lames-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    Let's chase through the rest of the proof without using the line $log_10alpha>1/5$. So instead of writing $log_10b>(n-1)/5$, we'll just write $$log_10b>(n-1)log_10alpha.$$ Continuing through the rest of the algebra, we end up with $$n-1<k/log_10alpha.$$



    So, this actually gives a more precise conclusion to the theorem: the number of steps $n$ is less than $1$ plus the number of decimal digits $k$ times the constant $C=1/log_10alpha$. If we now observe that $log_10alpha>1/5$ so $C<5$, we can conclude that $n$ is at most the number of decimal digits times $5$, which is the originally stated (but weaker) conclusion. It is natural to choose $5$ here since it is the smallest integer greater than $C$.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
      – Huseyin78
      Aug 27 at 16:16














    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    Let's chase through the rest of the proof without using the line $log_10alpha>1/5$. So instead of writing $log_10b>(n-1)/5$, we'll just write $$log_10b>(n-1)log_10alpha.$$ Continuing through the rest of the algebra, we end up with $$n-1<k/log_10alpha.$$



    So, this actually gives a more precise conclusion to the theorem: the number of steps $n$ is less than $1$ plus the number of decimal digits $k$ times the constant $C=1/log_10alpha$. If we now observe that $log_10alpha>1/5$ so $C<5$, we can conclude that $n$ is at most the number of decimal digits times $5$, which is the originally stated (but weaker) conclusion. It is natural to choose $5$ here since it is the smallest integer greater than $C$.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
      – Huseyin78
      Aug 27 at 16:16












    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted






    Let's chase through the rest of the proof without using the line $log_10alpha>1/5$. So instead of writing $log_10b>(n-1)/5$, we'll just write $$log_10b>(n-1)log_10alpha.$$ Continuing through the rest of the algebra, we end up with $$n-1<k/log_10alpha.$$



    So, this actually gives a more precise conclusion to the theorem: the number of steps $n$ is less than $1$ plus the number of decimal digits $k$ times the constant $C=1/log_10alpha$. If we now observe that $log_10alpha>1/5$ so $C<5$, we can conclude that $n$ is at most the number of decimal digits times $5$, which is the originally stated (but weaker) conclusion. It is natural to choose $5$ here since it is the smallest integer greater than $C$.






    share|cite|improve this answer














    Let's chase through the rest of the proof without using the line $log_10alpha>1/5$. So instead of writing $log_10b>(n-1)/5$, we'll just write $$log_10b>(n-1)log_10alpha.$$ Continuing through the rest of the algebra, we end up with $$n-1<k/log_10alpha.$$



    So, this actually gives a more precise conclusion to the theorem: the number of steps $n$ is less than $1$ plus the number of decimal digits $k$ times the constant $C=1/log_10alpha$. If we now observe that $log_10alpha>1/5$ so $C<5$, we can conclude that $n$ is at most the number of decimal digits times $5$, which is the originally stated (but weaker) conclusion. It is natural to choose $5$ here since it is the smallest integer greater than $C$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Aug 27 at 16:26

























    answered Aug 27 at 15:09









    Eric Wofsey

    165k12193307




    165k12193307











    • Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
      – Huseyin78
      Aug 27 at 16:16
















    • Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
      – Huseyin78
      Aug 27 at 16:16















    Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
    – Huseyin78
    Aug 27 at 16:16




    Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
    – Huseyin78
    Aug 27 at 16:16










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    You can easily expand out the polynomial
    $(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      You can easily expand out the polynomial
      $(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        You can easily expand out the polynomial
        $(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$






        share|cite|improve this answer












        You can easily expand out the polynomial
        $(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 26 at 22:03









        Penguino

        75449




        75449




















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            You can play around with things a bit too.



            Given $alpha=dfrac1+sqrt52$, it follows that



            beginalign
            alpha^2 &= alpha + 1 \
            alpha^3 &= alpha^2 + alpha \
            &= 2alpha + 1 \
            alpha^4 &= 2alpha^2 + alpha \
            &= 3alpha + 2 \
            alpha^5 &= 3alpha^2 + 2alpha \
            &= 5alpha + 3 \
            &> dfrac5+102+3 &textSince $sqrt 5 >2.$ \
            &> 10
            endalign



            So $alpha^5 > 10 implies 5 log_10alpha > 1 implies log_10alpha > dfrac 15.$



            A lot of problems can be solved by assuming that what you find out is useful and then going on to see what happens. He probably chose $dfrac 15$ because he found, using whatever method, that $log_10 alpha > dfrac 15$. He then just assumed that that was useful information and proceeded with the rest of the proof. If faith isn't a good enough reason, then just follow through out of curiosity to see what happens. Even if you fail, you now know more that you did before.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
              – Huseyin78
              Aug 27 at 12:25














            up vote
            0
            down vote













            You can play around with things a bit too.



            Given $alpha=dfrac1+sqrt52$, it follows that



            beginalign
            alpha^2 &= alpha + 1 \
            alpha^3 &= alpha^2 + alpha \
            &= 2alpha + 1 \
            alpha^4 &= 2alpha^2 + alpha \
            &= 3alpha + 2 \
            alpha^5 &= 3alpha^2 + 2alpha \
            &= 5alpha + 3 \
            &> dfrac5+102+3 &textSince $sqrt 5 >2.$ \
            &> 10
            endalign



            So $alpha^5 > 10 implies 5 log_10alpha > 1 implies log_10alpha > dfrac 15.$



            A lot of problems can be solved by assuming that what you find out is useful and then going on to see what happens. He probably chose $dfrac 15$ because he found, using whatever method, that $log_10 alpha > dfrac 15$. He then just assumed that that was useful information and proceeded with the rest of the proof. If faith isn't a good enough reason, then just follow through out of curiosity to see what happens. Even if you fail, you now know more that you did before.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
              – Huseyin78
              Aug 27 at 12:25












            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            You can play around with things a bit too.



            Given $alpha=dfrac1+sqrt52$, it follows that



            beginalign
            alpha^2 &= alpha + 1 \
            alpha^3 &= alpha^2 + alpha \
            &= 2alpha + 1 \
            alpha^4 &= 2alpha^2 + alpha \
            &= 3alpha + 2 \
            alpha^5 &= 3alpha^2 + 2alpha \
            &= 5alpha + 3 \
            &> dfrac5+102+3 &textSince $sqrt 5 >2.$ \
            &> 10
            endalign



            So $alpha^5 > 10 implies 5 log_10alpha > 1 implies log_10alpha > dfrac 15.$



            A lot of problems can be solved by assuming that what you find out is useful and then going on to see what happens. He probably chose $dfrac 15$ because he found, using whatever method, that $log_10 alpha > dfrac 15$. He then just assumed that that was useful information and proceeded with the rest of the proof. If faith isn't a good enough reason, then just follow through out of curiosity to see what happens. Even if you fail, you now know more that you did before.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            You can play around with things a bit too.



            Given $alpha=dfrac1+sqrt52$, it follows that



            beginalign
            alpha^2 &= alpha + 1 \
            alpha^3 &= alpha^2 + alpha \
            &= 2alpha + 1 \
            alpha^4 &= 2alpha^2 + alpha \
            &= 3alpha + 2 \
            alpha^5 &= 3alpha^2 + 2alpha \
            &= 5alpha + 3 \
            &> dfrac5+102+3 &textSince $sqrt 5 >2.$ \
            &> 10
            endalign



            So $alpha^5 > 10 implies 5 log_10alpha > 1 implies log_10alpha > dfrac 15.$



            A lot of problems can be solved by assuming that what you find out is useful and then going on to see what happens. He probably chose $dfrac 15$ because he found, using whatever method, that $log_10 alpha > dfrac 15$. He then just assumed that that was useful information and proceeded with the rest of the proof. If faith isn't a good enough reason, then just follow through out of curiosity to see what happens. Even if you fail, you now know more that you did before.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Aug 27 at 16:05

























            answered Aug 27 at 0:06









            steven gregory

            16.7k22155




            16.7k22155











            • Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
              – Huseyin78
              Aug 27 at 12:25
















            • Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
              – Huseyin78
              Aug 27 at 12:25















            Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
            – Huseyin78
            Aug 27 at 12:25




            Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
            – Huseyin78
            Aug 27 at 12:25

















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2895532%2fon-lames-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

            Carbon dioxide