Naw, you cannot assume smomehing as a 'proof'
-
-
-
We assume the opposite of the statement, and reach to a contradiction. This is a right way to proceed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I nearly got refused to my college for a shortcut like this one (have to state and assume rationality for the first two stages in a proof like this).
-
Do you mean that you have to say that cos(0°) is rational and assume that cos(1°) is rational? Then the induction works, because it needs rationality of cos(N°) and cos((N-1)°) to conclude that cos((N+1)°) is rational.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@Filo_youhanna@DrZeusPotato@TITO_241@_oathkeeper @ziadahmed57@CaptinBolt momken nehtagha -
Y3ni eh irrational
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
how can you assume while proving?

-
It's called reduction to absurdity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum … The idea is to assume the negation of what you want to prove and then arrive to a contradiction with something that is already proved (or an axiom)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Logical fallacy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I am not convinced. How do you prove the induction ? If you use cos(2θ)=2cos²(θ)-1 you only get that cos(2^k °) is irrational. And it is not obvious there exists a k (or not) such that 2^k mod 360 = 30.
-
je pensais la même chose que toi ça m’a sauté aux yeux
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.