Difference between revisions of "Sums and Perfect Sqares"
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | and the | + | Math is like art in many ways and people sometimes make a hobby of proof after proof after proof. However, these proofs are mostly from the Pythagorean Theorem. This theorem already has more proofs then needed so mathematicians should make a hobby of making proofs for theorems like these. |
− | + | Thank you, | |
− | + | Colball | |
− |
Revision as of 12:51, 14 June 2019
Here are many proofs for the Theory that
PROOF 1: , Hence . If you dont get that go to words.Conbine the fractions you get . Then Multiply: . Finnaly the 's in the numorator cancel leaving us with . I think you can finish the proof from there.
PROOF 2: The part refers to an by square cut by its diagonal and includes all the squares on the diagonal. The part refers to an by square cut by its diagonal but doesn't include the squares on the diagonal. Putting these together gives us a by square.
PROOF 3: We proceed using induction. If , then we have . Now assume that works. We prove that works. We add a on both sides, such that the left side becomes and we are done with the third proof.
Math is like art in many ways and people sometimes make a hobby of proof after proof after proof. However, these proofs are mostly from the Pythagorean Theorem. This theorem already has more proofs then needed so mathematicians should make a hobby of making proofs for theorems like these.
Thank you, Colball