# Thread: size(mn) proof

1. ## size(mn) proof

(i) Prove that $size(mn) \leq size(m) + size(n)$ for any n,m that are natural numbers.

(ii) Find m,n such that $size(mn) = size(m) + size(n)$

2. What is the definition of "size(x)"?

3. That is the question.....

I think I'll just ask my lecturer tomorrow... This is from a cryptography course if that helps??

cheers

4. Originally Posted by james12
That is the question.....

I think I'll just ask my lecturer tomorrow... This is from a cryptography course if that helps??

cheers

How can you expect to solve a problem if you don't even understand/know the symbols in it?!?

5. Hence my post on here..... Was wondering if anyone else had come across something similar and could help me out??

6. Originally Posted by james12
Hence my post on here..... Was wondering if anyone else had come across something similar and could help me out??

But then you weren't asking for help but for complete resolution of the problem...

Tonio

7. Not exactly, someone could of pointed out what size(x) meant to give me a headstart i.e. help me out.. Then i probably could've accomplished the rest. I think you're just being a bit perdantic? Maybe if i posted a topic heading '' What does size(x) mean'' you would be satisfied?

8. Originally Posted by james12
Not exactly, someone could of pointed out what size(x) meant to give me a headstart i.e. help me out.. Then i probably could've accomplished the rest. I think you're just being a bit perdantic? Maybe if i posted a topic heading '' What does size(x) mean'' you would be satisfied?
Well, usually, stating the definition of whatever symbol is used in the statement of the problem is not considered to be much of a "headstart". It's unlikely that anyone would have done that. I think Tonio is right in feeling somewhat cheated. You should remember that people who help you here do so voluntarily and that the least you can do is make their job easier by being clear about the problem you're having. If you had done that in the first place, you would have saved everyone's time (including your own).

9. Originally Posted by Bruno
Well, usually, stating the definition of whatever symbol is used in the statement of the problem is not considered to be much of a "headstart". It's unlikely that anyone would have done that. I think Tonio is right in feeling somewhat cheated. You should remember that people who help you here do so voluntarily and that the least you can do is make their job easier by being clear about the problem you're having. If you had done that in the first place, you would have saved everyone's time (including your own).
Inappropriate text removed by moderator (CB)

Further editing by moderator (MF)

My friend looked at this thread and he knew straight away what the 'problem' was.

10. Originally Posted by james12
''Well, usually, stating the definition of whatever symbol is used in the statement of the problem is not considered to be much of a "headstart". It's unlikely that anyone would have done that. I think Tonio is right in feeling somewhat cheated. You should remember that people who help you here do so voluntarily and that the least you can do is make their job easier by being clear about the problem you're having. If you had done that in the first place, you would have saved everyone's time (including your own). ''
Inappropriate comment removed by moderator

My friend looked at this thread and he knew straight away what the 'problem' was.
Perhaps this "friend" knew more of the context of the question. Since "size" is a function in common use it is unreasonable to expect people here to have to guess what this question is about.

CB