Items related to Proof of Bertrand's Postulate: Proof of Bertrand's...

Proof of Bertrand's Postulate: Proof of Bertrand's Postulate, Projection Linear Algebra, Linear Algebra, Functional Analysis, Vector Projection, Technical Drawing, Orthographic Projection, Linear Map - Softcover

 
9786130344061: Proof of Bertrand's Postulate: Proof of Bertrand's Postulate, Projection Linear Algebra, Linear Algebra, Functional Analysis, Vector Projection, Technical Drawing, Orthographic Projection, Linear Map

Synopsis

Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. In mathematics, Bertrand''s postulate states that for each n ≥ 2 there is a prime p such that n < p < 2n. It was first proven by Pafnuty Chebyshev, and a short but advanced proof was given by Srinivasa Ramanujan. The gist of the following elementary but involved proof by contradiction is due to Paul Erdős; the basic idea of the proof is to show that a certain binomial coefficient needs to have a prime factor within the desired interval in order to be large enough. It is then shown by some extended computation that the second fact is inconsistent with the first one. Therefore Bertrand''s postulate must hold. In order to present the main argument of the proof intelligibly, these lemmas and a few auxiliary claims are proved separately first.

"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.

Reseña del editor

Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. In mathematics, Bertrand''s postulate states that for each n ≥ 2 there is a prime p such that n < p < 2n. It was first proven by Pafnuty Chebyshev, and a short but advanced proof was given by Srinivasa Ramanujan. The gist of the following elementary but involved proof by contradiction is due to Paul Erdős; the basic idea of the proof is to show that a certain binomial coefficient needs to have a prime factor within the desired interval in order to be large enough. It is then shown by some extended computation that the second fact is inconsistent with the first one. Therefore Bertrand''s postulate must hold. In order to present the main argument of the proof intelligibly, these lemmas and a few auxiliary claims are proved separately first.

"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.