Mathematics desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 24 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 26 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
What's the most common equivalent term to " modular arithmetic" when the modulus is a non-integer, such as with angles expressed in radians (which are equivalent "modulo" 2π)? Neon Merlin 01:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the following basic proof:
The proof establishes that sup(B) exists and is an upper bound for both A and B, which I understand. Then it says:
I don't understand the contradiction: if sup(B) is an upper bound for A, then all a ∈ A are ≤ sup(B). But sup(A) is not necessarily in A, so sup(B) < sup(A) doesn't mean that there exists an element of A > sup(B). What am I missing? OldTimeNESter ( talk) 14:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Mathematics desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 24 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 26 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
What's the most common equivalent term to " modular arithmetic" when the modulus is a non-integer, such as with angles expressed in radians (which are equivalent "modulo" 2π)? Neon Merlin 01:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the following basic proof:
The proof establishes that sup(B) exists and is an upper bound for both A and B, which I understand. Then it says:
I don't understand the contradiction: if sup(B) is an upper bound for A, then all a ∈ A are ≤ sup(B). But sup(A) is not necessarily in A, so sup(B) < sup(A) doesn't mean that there exists an element of A > sup(B). What am I missing? OldTimeNESter ( talk) 14:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)