2 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: .png]
grrr... We're FORCED to work in a group for our biostatistics class to do our projects.
The problem is my group is lazy... like really lazy.
I'm trying to get a decent grade and want to put effort into the project.
We split up the work, and one of the guys sends me the graphs he's going to submit for our project. We're supposed to use R (program) to generate the graph. He used excel. He didn't even bother labeling the axis.
I don't know what to do... either these people are clinically retarded or think they can afford a lower grade. But I can't, I'm on a tight scholarship.
I already tried telling them I'd be happy to do most of the work, but oddly they're averse to that plan too. They wanna split up the work and do the bare minimum for what they've got.
I feel kinda bad because I came into the class late, and they were the only group willing to accept me. So they're not bad people, just lazy / stupid.
What choice do I have? I don't wanna be an asshole and badger them about this or that detail / tell them their work is bad. But I don't want a shitty grade either.
And I don't wanna tell my professor either, because he probably has better things to do than babysit us, like grading papers. I also don't wanna come off as arrogant.
8 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: tumblr_msu5cyoHk51rk74v1o1_1280.jpg]
Greetings, /sci/. I recently came up on a question about a proof.
On stackexchange, the user inquired about what the proof would look like for this question:
>Show that if x and y are real numbers with x<y, then there exists an irrational number t such that x<t<y.
The link is here: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/46822/density-of-irrationals
It's a bit old, but I found it randomly while web surfing. Anyway, I was thinking that after considering x >= 0 and y - x > 0, one could make use of the Archimedian property and acquire n(y-x) > 1. This is fine, I get this. But, why can't you simply multiple by the sqrt(2). Doing that, you obtain the following:
sqrt(2)n(y-x) > sqrt(2)
sqrt(2)ny - sqrt(2)nx > sqrt(2)
sqrt(2)ny > sqrt(2)nx + sqrt(2).
Now, by well ordering, we can find an m such that
sqrt(2)nx < m. Then, this implies
m - 1 <= sqrt(2)nx < m.
Doing all the algebra and stuff, we get
sqrt(2)nx < m < sqrt(2)ny
Dividing by sqrt(2)n, we get:
x < m/sqrt(2)n < y.
Clearly, m/sqrt(2)n = sqrt(2)m/2n is irrational and that satisfies our t.
Question is: Why didn't this person do this? In fact, why didn't anyone? Is there some glaring error I'm missing? Why not just multiply the shit by sqrt(2) and continue on, letting sqrt(2)m/2n = t?