On Lame's Theorem
Clash 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
$r_0 = r_1q_1+r_2$, $0â¤r_2<r_1, $
$r_1 = r_2q_2+r_3$, $0â¤r_3<r_2, $
. . .
$r_n-2 = r_n-1q_n-1+r_n$, $0â¤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 $q_n âÂÂ¥ 2$ and this is because $r_n < r_n-1.$
Thus we have
$r_n âÂÂ¥ 1=f_2$,
$r_n-1 âÂÂ¥ 2r_n âÂÂ¥ 2f_2 = f_3$,
$r_n-2 âÂÂ¥ r_n-1 + r_n âÂÂ¥ f_3 + f_2 = f_4$,
$r_n-3 âÂÂ¥ r_n-2 + r_n-1 âÂÂ¥ f_4 + f_3 = f_5$,
...
$r_2 âÂÂ¥ r_3 + r_4 âÂÂ¥ f_n-1 + f_n-2 = f_n$,
$b = r_1 âÂÂ¥ r_2 + r_3 âÂÂ¥ f_n + f_n-1 = f_n+1$.
Thus notice that $bâÂÂ¥f_n+1$.
By a Lemma I don't report here, we have $f_n+1>ñ^nâÂÂ1$ for $n>2$.
As a result, we have $b > ñ^nâÂÂ1$.
Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$
we see that
$log_10b > (n â 1)/5$.
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 $(n â 1) < 5k$.
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
number-theory arithmetic
add a comment |Â
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
$r_0 = r_1q_1+r_2$, $0â¤r_2<r_1, $
$r_1 = r_2q_2+r_3$, $0â¤r_3<r_2, $
. . .
$r_n-2 = r_n-1q_n-1+r_n$, $0â¤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 $q_n âÂÂ¥ 2$ and this is because $r_n < r_n-1.$
Thus we have
$r_n âÂÂ¥ 1=f_2$,
$r_n-1 âÂÂ¥ 2r_n âÂÂ¥ 2f_2 = f_3$,
$r_n-2 âÂÂ¥ r_n-1 + r_n âÂÂ¥ f_3 + f_2 = f_4$,
$r_n-3 âÂÂ¥ r_n-2 + r_n-1 âÂÂ¥ f_4 + f_3 = f_5$,
...
$r_2 âÂÂ¥ r_3 + r_4 âÂÂ¥ f_n-1 + f_n-2 = f_n$,
$b = r_1 âÂÂ¥ r_2 + r_3 âÂÂ¥ f_n + f_n-1 = f_n+1$.
Thus notice that $bâÂÂ¥f_n+1$.
By a Lemma I don't report here, we have $f_n+1>ñ^nâÂÂ1$ for $n>2$.
As a result, we have $b > ñ^nâÂÂ1$.
Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$
we see that
$log_10b > (n â 1)/5$.
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 $(n â 1) < 5k$.
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
number-theory arithmetic
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 $1/5$.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:29
But IâÂÂd like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
â 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.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:35
In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
â Saucy O'Path
Aug 26 at 21:38
What is Lamé's theorem?
â Christian Blatter
Aug 27 at 8:48
add a comment |Â
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
$r_0 = r_1q_1+r_2$, $0â¤r_2<r_1, $
$r_1 = r_2q_2+r_3$, $0â¤r_3<r_2, $
. . .
$r_n-2 = r_n-1q_n-1+r_n$, $0â¤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 $q_n âÂÂ¥ 2$ and this is because $r_n < r_n-1.$
Thus we have
$r_n âÂÂ¥ 1=f_2$,
$r_n-1 âÂÂ¥ 2r_n âÂÂ¥ 2f_2 = f_3$,
$r_n-2 âÂÂ¥ r_n-1 + r_n âÂÂ¥ f_3 + f_2 = f_4$,
$r_n-3 âÂÂ¥ r_n-2 + r_n-1 âÂÂ¥ f_4 + f_3 = f_5$,
...
$r_2 âÂÂ¥ r_3 + r_4 âÂÂ¥ f_n-1 + f_n-2 = f_n$,
$b = r_1 âÂÂ¥ r_2 + r_3 âÂÂ¥ f_n + f_n-1 = f_n+1$.
Thus notice that $bâÂÂ¥f_n+1$.
By a Lemma I don't report here, we have $f_n+1>ñ^nâÂÂ1$ for $n>2$.
As a result, we have $b > ñ^nâÂÂ1$.
Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$
we see that
$log_10b > (n â 1)/5$.
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 $(n â 1) < 5k$.
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
number-theory arithmetic
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
$r_0 = r_1q_1+r_2$, $0â¤r_2<r_1, $
$r_1 = r_2q_2+r_3$, $0â¤r_3<r_2, $
. . .
$r_n-2 = r_n-1q_n-1+r_n$, $0â¤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 $q_n âÂÂ¥ 2$ and this is because $r_n < r_n-1.$
Thus we have
$r_n âÂÂ¥ 1=f_2$,
$r_n-1 âÂÂ¥ 2r_n âÂÂ¥ 2f_2 = f_3$,
$r_n-2 âÂÂ¥ r_n-1 + r_n âÂÂ¥ f_3 + f_2 = f_4$,
$r_n-3 âÂÂ¥ r_n-2 + r_n-1 âÂÂ¥ f_4 + f_3 = f_5$,
...
$r_2 âÂÂ¥ r_3 + r_4 âÂÂ¥ f_n-1 + f_n-2 = f_n$,
$b = r_1 âÂÂ¥ r_2 + r_3 âÂÂ¥ f_n + f_n-1 = f_n+1$.
Thus notice that $bâÂÂ¥f_n+1$.
By a Lemma I don't report here, we have $f_n+1>ñ^nâÂÂ1$ for $n>2$.
As a result, we have $b > ñ^nâÂÂ1$.
Now notice since $log_10 alpha > frac15$
we see that
$log_10b > (n â 1)/5$.
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 $(n â 1) < 5k$.
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
number-theory arithmetic
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 $1/5$.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:29
But IâÂÂd like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
â 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.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:35
In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
â Saucy O'Path
Aug 26 at 21:38
What is Lamé's theorem?
â Christian Blatter
Aug 27 at 8:48
add a comment |Â
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 $1/5$.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:29
But IâÂÂd like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
â 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.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:35
In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
â Saucy O'Path
Aug 26 at 21:38
What is Lamé's theorem?
â 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 $1/5$.
â 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 $1/5$.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:29
But IâÂÂd like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
â Huseyin78
Aug 26 at 21:33
But IâÂÂd like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
â 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.
â 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.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:35
In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
â 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 $frac16$.
â Saucy O'Path
Aug 26 at 21:38
What is Lamé's theorem?
â Christian Blatter
Aug 27 at 8:48
What is Lamé's theorem?
â Christian Blatter
Aug 27 at 8:48
add a comment |Â
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 $C$.
Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 16:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You can easily expand out the polynomial
$(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$
add a comment |Â
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.
Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 12:25
add a comment |Â
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 $C$.
Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 16:16
add a comment |Â
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 $C$.
Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 16:16
add a comment |Â
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 $C$.
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 $C$.
edited Aug 27 at 16:26
answered Aug 27 at 15:09
Eric Wofsey
165k12193307
165k12193307
Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 16:16
add a comment |Â
Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 16:16
Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 16:16
Thanks a lot, Eric, wonderful!
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 16:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You can easily expand out the polynomial
$(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You can easily expand out the polynomial
$(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$
add a comment |Â
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 $10*2^5$
You can easily expand out the polynomial
$(1+sqrt5)^5$ and confirm it is greater than $10*2^5$
answered Aug 26 at 22:03
Penguino
75449
75449
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 12:25
add a comment |Â
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.
Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 12:25
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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...
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 12:25
add a comment |Â
Thank you Steven... please have a look at the question now that I've edit it. It's more clear...
â 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...
â 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...
â Huseyin78
Aug 27 at 12:25
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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 $1/5$.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:29
But IâÂÂd like to know why... it could also be > 1/6, then...
â 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.
â Eric Wofsey
Aug 26 at 21:35
In point of fact, if something is larget than $frac15$, then it most certainly is larger than $frac16$.
â Saucy O'Path
Aug 26 at 21:38
What is Lamé's theorem?
â Christian Blatter
Aug 27 at 8:48