I'm gonna TRY to piece this together in words. Rip my asshole if I'm wrong, I'm trying to learn how to read things like this.
"There exists a (p,q) in N [as in a set, I think?] such that epsilon exists in the positive side [dimension? Only the positive numbers] of Q conjugate [also a set]; there also exists a value n-not in N conjugate [a set] such that n also exists in N conjugate where n is greater than or equal to n-not. Is the summation of that formula [as listed] from 1 to an arbitrary value n less than or equal to epsilon?"
Nolan Wright
brainlet
Cooper Parker
faggotry is everywhere the morons always want to follow the wise around being a burden shitting everything up and tearing everything down
Josiah Moore
p = 0, q = 0
Grayson Sanchez
Let gamma be the limit of [math]\sum_{i=1}^n 1/i - \ln(n)[/math] as n goes to infinity.
His statement is supposed to be saying that gamma is rational, but it doesn't work if you count 0 as a natural number.
Mason Parker
So I was partially right? Did I at least read the problem correctly? Can't make heads or tails of what it's asking since my set theory is almost 0 but.
Wyatt Hall
>His statement is supposed to be saying that gamma is rational >gamma is rational
If gamma was rational then God would exist. Heck, if pi or e was rational then God would exist. The fact that all the important numbers are fucking irrational shows that we live in a universe full of chaos and that nothing matters and we will all die.
