Can a mathy boy help me solve this set of queestions, this Halloween

# Can a mathy boy help me solve this set of queestions, this Halloween

Holy shit, scariest thing I've seen all day.

I have the same mindset cousin

this is basic third year math.

Im first year math my doodd

I will help you help yourself then. This is not the american solution. Step 1 is to google the text book for solutions. Step 2 is to make friends with the Chinese International Students. They have every answer book and what they do not currently have, they can get from someone back home.

Could u possibly provide some insight into solving it, friend

I've been trying that, but my uni complies shit from like seven different textbooks and just slaps there name on it without giving credit to the original books.

i feel like im just overthinking it or something

shit gives me a headache

You need to talk about prime factorization, or at least you could, to show that they share no primes and that if they do, such primes can be factored out

You would do this with 2 cases that they don't share a prime, in which case you are done because you can't reduce. And they other case that they do share a prime, in which case you can factor them out until they share no primes,

but how would u do that introducing the set for the hint

The answer is to rip it apart in front of the whole class and yell "down with american imperialism !"

I’m British but safe my g

Let S be a set S.T. {...} then 1\in Z ^ 2\in N so r=1/2 so the set is non- empty

If I haven't forgot my set theory, after introducing 'S', since S is a nonempty subset of N, a trivial application of the well-ordering property of N proves that S has a least element.

b depends on how you define Q, and how much you are allowed to assume about prime factorization and its relation to fractions

c should be trivial after a and b.

Your a life saver bro, do u think you could write that on a piece of paper as it is a little hard to understand

the definition of being coprime means m and n have no common factors ie gcd(m,n)=1. If m/n were not in reducible form then they would not be coprime which means they have a common factor and the fraction could be reduced to a simpler form

(c) assume there exists another pair (x,y) =(m,n) where x is an integer and y is a natural number. Since (m,n) is in reduced form and gcd(m,n)=1 it follows that x=m and y=n amd therefore (m,n) is unique

what textbook did you get this from

use the fact that every integer can be written as a unique product of primes. then you can say for all combinations of your variables, there exists a unique way to reduce the top and bottom to primes, then remove all like primes

S is a subset of the irrationals. it is nonempty because the integers and naturals are nonempty. use a mapping to show the rest of the proof.

Is not sure my uni compiles like six text books into a random class notes pdf, and then just takes questions of it. Thank you soo much for the help though

This guy has the details down better for proving nonempty, plus yeah since the problem is asking you should use the well ordering property.

It's a subset of the Rationals Q, not the irrationals R\Q

damn it. yes the rationals. the mapping comment is appropriate though.

while I have you guys here, can you give me a hand with this one aswell

or this one

i assumed for the first one u could just do a truth table

this is too easy op

a) unwrap the yellow one

b) milk choclate lover gets teh yellow one

subjective bullshit

what class is this from?

Pure mathematics

It looks like the equivalent of what you would see in a discrete math class. He is also learning basic counting and probability and solving logic pussles I bet.

Yeah pretty much

not to diss but you really shouldn't need help on these lmao.