Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
It is known that ζ(3) is irrational (Apéry's theorem) and that infinitely many of the numbers ζ(2n + 1) : n ∈ , are irrational. [1] There are also results on the irrationality of values of the Riemann zeta function at the elements of certain subsets of the positive odd integers; for example, at least one of ζ (5), ζ (7), ζ (9), or ζ ...
A number line from −3 to 3, with 0 in the middle. The number 0 is the smallest nonnegative integer, and the largest nonpositive integer. The natural number following 0 is 1 and no natural number precedes 0. The number 0 may or may not be considered a natural number, [70] [71] but it is an integer, and hence a rational number and a real number ...
The number 2 raised to any positive integer power must be even (because it is divisible by 2) and the number 3 raised to any positive integer power must be odd (since none of its prime factors will be 2). Clearly, an integer cannot be both odd and even at the same time: we have a contradiction.
Owing to the zeros of the sine function, the functional equation implies that ζ(s) has a simple zero at each even negative integer s = −2n, known as the trivial zeros of ζ(s). When s is an even positive integer, the product sin( π s / 2 ) Γ(1 − s ) on the right is non-zero because Γ(1 − s ) has a simple pole , which cancels ...
Rational numbers have irrationality exponent 1, while (as a consequence of Dirichlet's approximation theorem) every irrational number has irrationality exponent at least 2. On the other hand, an application of Borel-Cantelli lemma shows that almost all numbers, including all algebraic irrational numbers , have an irrationality exponent exactly ...
Prime number: A positive integer with exactly two positive divisors: itself and 1. The primes form an infinite sequence 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, ... Composite number: A positive integer that can be factored into a product of smaller positive integers. Every integer greater than one is either prime or composite.
In a zero-sum situation, one side wins only because the other loses. Therefore, if you have zero-sum bias, you see most (all?) situations as a competition.
The combinatorial interpretation of b 0 is the number of 0-tuples of elements from a b-element set; there is exactly one 0-tuple. The set-theoretic interpretation of b 0 is the number of functions from the empty set to a b-element set; there is exactly one such function, namely, the empty function. [1] All three of these specialize to give 0 0 = 1.