I think you mean e to the (- infinity) power. The proof would be a limit proof.
The limit (as n-->infinity) of [( en) ] = 0
You should have some other limits in class that you have proven.
Show that your limit is less than one of those given for all values of n then you have your proof.
For instance, if you already know that lim (as n-->infinity) of [(1/n) ] = 0
then for n = 1, 1/e1 < 1/1 true
for n = 2, 1/e2 < 1/2 true
Then assume that it is true for n = k
so for n = K, 1/eK < 1/K assumed true
therefore: eK > K
multiply both by e
e(k+1) > ke
but we know ke > k+1 because e>1
SO: e(k+1) > ke > k+1 now take the reciprocal (reverses the inequalities)
1/e(k+1) < 1/ke < 1/ (k+1)
by transitive prop of inequalities eliminate the middle term
so that 1/e(k+1) < 1/ (k+1) this proves the case for n=K+1 and therefore will be true for all values of n since k was never a specified value.
And if: 1/e(k+1) < 1/ (k+1) by one of the properties of limits, since the lim of 1/n is zero, then the lim of 1/en is also zero when n --> infinity.
SAS
Prove it by induction on n, use 0 or 1 as base cases.
the first one is:(0!+0!+0!)!=6Because 0!=10!+0!+0!=3and 3!=6Just use factorial(1+1+1)! = 63 Factorial = 62+2+2 = 6So Simple(3*3)-3 = 6Also SimpleSqrt(4) + Sqrt(4)+ Sqrt(4) = 6Sqrt(4) = 2So 2+2+2 =65+(5/5) = 6So Simple6+6-6 = 6Its quite simple7-(7/7) = 6Cuberoot(8) + Cuberoot(8) + Cuberoot(8) = 6Cuberoot(8) = 2Using the phrase "Cuberoot" is not allowed. This written as a mathematical sign viz. ³√x . This involves the number 3 which is not permissible. Since you have correctly solved for 0 and 1 it should be relatively easy to solve for 8. All your other answers are spot on although my cousin's answer for 8 was (cos((d/dx)(8))+cos((d/dx)(8))+cos((d/dx)(8))) = 6 which is correct but way far more complicated than the simpler answer that you should be looking for.(Sqrt(9) * Sqrt(9)) - Sqrt(9) = 6Sqrt(9) = 3(3*3)-3 = 6
100x2-81
S orbital
You can't prove it, because it's usually not true.The only time it's true is when x=0 .
You cannot prove that sqrt(3)/2 = 0 because it is simply not true! The solution to the equation is theta (or, tita as you like to call it) = pi/6c or 30 degrees. The cosine of that angle is sqrt(3)/2 but that is NOT the same as it being 0.
(a to the power of 1)/(a to the power of 1)=1 So, a to the power of (1-1)=1 Therefore, a to the power of 0=1
15 percent 0 equals 0; 0 percent 15 equals 0. Both the above are true
Cannot prove that 2 divided by 10 equals 2 because it is not true.
yes
In normal math, 1 is not equal to 0, so any "proof" that they are equal either uses non-standard definitions, or it is based on faulty logic.
Because there is no way to define the divisors, the equations cannot be evaluated.
You can't it equals 2. You can't it equals 2.
0
0
maybe