Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with nt.number-theory
Search options not deleted
user 117781
Prime numbers, diophantine equations, diophantine approximations, analytic or algebraic number theory, arithmetic geometry, Galois theory, transcendental number theory, continued fractions
1
vote
Subsets of the integers which are closed under multiplication
To make Mark Sapir's answer more explicit, we can take the direct product of sets obtained from your second example. For instance, we can take $S = \{ x: \exists a \in A, b \in B: x =ab\}$ where $A = …
- 129
1
vote
How to show that the following function isn't a polynomial over Q?
"If $f(x)$ were defined as $(x−b_1) + (x−b_1)(x−b_2) + …,$ then this question is not so hard."
Does taking the derivative of the given function get you to this simpler case?
"At any particula …
- 129