Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
So, if one starts from a solution in terms of radicals, one gets an increasing sequence of fields such that the last one contains the solution, and each is a normal extension of the preceding one with a Galois group that is cyclic. Conversely, if one has such a sequence of fields, the equation is solvable in terms of radicals.
One of the widely used types of impossibility proof is proof by contradiction.In this type of proof, it is shown that if a proposition, such as a solution to a particular class of equations, is assumed to hold, then via deduction two mutually contradictory things can be shown to hold, such as a number being both even and odd or both negative and positive.
An underdetermined linear system has either no solution or infinitely many solutions. For example, + + = + + = is an underdetermined system without any solution; any system of equations having no solution is said to be inconsistent. On the other hand, the system
In the case of a linear system, the system may be said to be underspecified, in which case the presence of more than one solution would imply an infinite number of solutions (since the system would be describable in terms of at least one free variable [2]), but that property does not extend to nonlinear systems (e.g., the system with the ...
Therefore, the solution = is extraneous and not valid, and the original equation has no solution. For this specific example, it could be recognized that (for the value =), the operation of multiplying by () (+) would be a multiplication by zero. However, it is not always simple to evaluate whether each operation already performed was allowed by ...
In mathematics, a proof by infinite descent, also known as Fermat's method of descent, is a particular kind of proof by contradiction [1] used to show that a statement cannot possibly hold for any number, by showing that if the statement were to hold for a number, then the same would be true for a smaller number, leading to an infinite descent and ultimately a contradiction. [2]
In that case, it will never prove that a particular polynomial equation has a solution when there is no solution in the integers. Thus, if T were complete and ω-consistent, it would be possible to determine algorithmically whether a polynomial equation has a solution by merely enumerating proofs of T until either " p has a solution" or " p has ...
In this case, the formula has no solutions. In the other cases, the formula contains a positive unit clause , so we do a unit propagation: the literal is set to true, all the clauses containing are removed, and all clauses containing have this literal removed. The result is a new Horn formula, so we reiterate.