January 6th, 2017, 11:41 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2016 From: Arizona Posts: 209 Thanks: 37 Math Focus: I'm still deciding, but my recent focus has been olympiad problems and math journal problems.  Quick question
In reference to 2.34 Theorem is $V_q$ supposed to be $V_p$?

January 6th, 2017, 12:05 PM  #2 
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2015 From: USA Posts: 2,531 Thanks: 1390 
This proof is almost identical but a bit clearer. 
January 6th, 2017, 12:22 PM  #3  
Member Joined: Dec 2016 From: USA Posts: 46 Thanks: 11  Quote:
There is no such thing as $V_p$. The sets $V_q,W_q$ are defined for points $q \in K$. The proof in your book is valid. Last edited by quasi; January 6th, 2017 at 12:30 PM.  
January 6th, 2017, 12:26 PM  #4 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2016 From: Arizona Posts: 209 Thanks: 37 Math Focus: I'm still deciding, but my recent focus has been olympiad problems and math journal problems. 
I've just never seen him refer to a neighborhood of $p$ using $V_q$ Thanks . 
January 6th, 2017, 12:28 PM  #5 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2016 From: Arizona Posts: 209 Thanks: 37 Math Focus: I'm still deciding, but my recent focus has been olympiad problems and math journal problems. 
I realize that there is no such thing as $V_p$ but thanks for pointing that out anyways. I was not questioning the validity of the proof, just the notation. Last edited by ProofOfALifetime; January 6th, 2017 at 12:30 PM. 
January 6th, 2017, 12:37 PM  #6  
Member Joined: Dec 2016 From: USA Posts: 46 Thanks: 11  Quote:
But they're not just any old neigborhoods. The radii are defined so as to force them to be disjoint. For the proof in question, the point $p$ is fixed; the points $q$ vary (over the points of $K$). The neighborhoods $V_q,W_q$ are defined based on the variable point $q \in K$. Last edited by quasi; January 6th, 2017 at 12:49 PM.  
January 6th, 2017, 12:54 PM  #7 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2016 From: Arizona Posts: 209 Thanks: 37 Math Focus: I'm still deciding, but my recent focus has been olympiad problems and math journal problems. 
Okay I get it. Thanks quasi. I get the whole radii thing. I get the proof I guess the notation confused me a little at first.


Tags 
question, quick 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Very quick question  Timk  Algebra  3  March 27th, 2012 10:31 PM 
Quick Question  hrdrok  Algebra  3  March 18th, 2010 10:13 PM 
Quick question  dabdias  Calculus  3  April 8th, 2009 08:44 AM 
quick hw question  axelle  Economics  1  May 17th, 2008 10:44 PM 
quick question  Kiranpreet  Algebra  2  April 24th, 2008 02:02 PM 