forum.virtualchallengemeets.com
Your connection to the competitive math/science community. (Formerly texasmath.org)
1984 IMO Proposal
29 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
1984 IMO Proposal
by zefuri » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:54 pm
Let [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] be positive integers. Show that [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] can never be a square.
Last edited by zefuri on Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- zefuri
- Incessant Spammer
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:39 pm
by stupidityismygam » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:02 pm
ys he does...
i cant edit it, where are my MOD POWERS??? :'(
i cant edit it, where are my MOD POWERS??? :'(
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by bradp » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:05 pm
do all proofs have to be bogged down by pretentious language like "Clearly,"?
Apparently it isn't enough to say
I know this.
We have to say
I know this and anyone who doesn't is stupid.
crap.. i said clearly in my attempt @ the APMO 1997 triangular number problem
hypocrite[unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]
Apparently it isn't enough to say
I know this.
We have to say
I know this and anyone who doesn't is stupid.
crap.. i said clearly in my attempt @ the APMO 1997 triangular number problem
hypocrite[unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]
- bradp
- Perfectionist
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:07 pm
- Location: Kwood
by stupidityismygam » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:07 pm
we are saying that...
clearly is just short for all that stuff
clearly is just short for all that stuff
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by zefuri » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:16 pm
lol and i say clearly cuz im lazy =P
Well,
We assume that [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] is a square for sake of contradiction.
Since [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] is [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] and all squares are [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]
Because [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula], [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] must be [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] to be congreunt to 0 or 1 respectively.
Now, isnt clearly much easier
Well,
We assume that [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] is a square for sake of contradiction.
Since [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] is [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] and all squares are [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]
Because [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula], [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] must be [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] to be congreunt to 0 or 1 respectively.
Now, isnt clearly much easier
- zefuri
- Incessant Spammer
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:39 pm
by stupidityismygam » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:19 pm
then by a well known theorem this is trivial...[unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]
note: read what i wrote in the other topic to see the humor
note: read what i wrote in the other topic to see the humor
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by Quelloquialism » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:55 pm
Dang it, Stephen! Why do you always refer to quantum electrodynamics at the ends of your proofs?!
=D
=D
- Quelloquialism
- Celebrated Spammer
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: TopCoder Chat Room 1
by stupidityismygam » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:03 am
Last edited by stupidityismygam on Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by stupidityismygam » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:27 pm
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by stupidityismygam » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:36 pm
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by stupidityismygam » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:07 pm
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by bradp » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:21 pm
at the klein meet... i wasn't even thinking about taking the UIL A tests. i was just picturing myself in one of those rooms taking zillions of NS tests with all of the klein all-stars
oh what a great day
oh what a great day
- bradp
- Perfectionist
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:07 pm
- Location: Kwood
by stupidityismygam » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:23 pm
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by stupidityismygam » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:29 pm
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by stupidityismygam » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:36 pm
hehe, you surprised me...
i score a 373...YAY i won
brad 382...
WTFWTFWTF who the heck is brad
i score a 373...YAY i won
brad 382...
WTFWTFWTF who the heck is brad
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by stupidityismygam » Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:01 pm
fine, the solution is..
by a strike of luck, you realize that if 4mn-m-n=x^2,then
16mn-4m-4n=(2x)^2, and then you own the problem
CLEARLY, it is trivial from here [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]
by a strike of luck, you realize that if 4mn-m-n=x^2,then
16mn-4m-4n=(2x)^2, and then you own the problem
CLEARLY, it is trivial from here [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]
-
stupidityismygam - Ubiquitous Spammer
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:02 pm
29 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests