I believe to have proven something that I need for an algorithm I'm developing.
The proposition is:
Proof:
Substitution:
// see Greatest common divisor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this correct?
Thank you
Bernhard
I believe to have proven something that I need for an algorithm I'm developing.
The proposition is:
Proof:
Substitution:
// see Greatest common divisor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this correct?
Thank you
Bernhard
Hello Bernhard,
Is the == sign a congruence ? ? If yes, what is the modulus considered ? Because a congruence without modulus is meaningless.
(Funny like we all get the same idea when we lack an congruence sign on the computer )
Out of curiosity, what is the algorithm you are developing about, if not too indiscrete ?
EDIT : ah, no, I get it, this is the conditional equivalence sign in the C language. Well obviously, if , then the equality holds, because , and . I don't really get your proof (what does it show ? a proof needs words), but I think you might get somewhere if you consider dividing the right hand side with the left hand side ...
Hi Ray
Thanks for looking at my proof. Sorry for using a confusing notation (corrected it now).
I'm trying to prove that
holds, i.e. that can be calculated by
I believe to have proven the equivalence by applying what I hope are legal transformations to reach the equation
which is a valid connection between and (see Greatest common divisor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The cool thing about the substitution is that the equivalence applies for an arbitrary number of arguments to , i.e. which happens to be what I actually need, not just two arguments (i.e. ).
The algorithm is used for calculating BPMs to represent arbitrary rhythmic patterns. See Boss Dr.Beat DB-88