I mean, it's not like there's much meaningful stuff going on here, anyway.
You may have missed that it is already in set builder notation. If you perforce want the \{x \,\mid\, \phi(x) \} form then \{ x \,\mid \,x \in...
It is already in set builder notation. Context?
jermy, given your threads show, shall we say, less than expert understanding of maths, you would do well not to pretend expertise in number theory....
Grep'ed for Noether, got nothin'. So: Happy reading.
Cesspool. Best place for it.
eram, if you don't know how to solve questions of this type, it is better not to be so assertive.
I smell sock puppetry...
Pigeonholes, natch.
It is equivalent, cf. this Mathoverflow question and its answer.
Cute: n-\varphi(n)-1=2k, which then gets us x trivially. (I'll admit that I skipped your posts, initially. I usually stay away from arfa brane's...
Nope: (p-1)(q-1) is not that much smaller, and you now have the added problem that the factorization doesn't tell you which factor contribute to...
I don't see how. (Note: the OP is not helpful, since it assumes you can e.g. divide \varphi(n) by (p-1), which seems tricky without knowing p in...
That's so deep. No, wait - that's so rubbish. Not deep, rubbish. Glad we got that sorted out. Move along now, nothing to see here.
There is some irony in that, almost by definition, one is not able to "turn a crank".
It is deliciously ironic that you're exhibiting Dunning-Kruger in your post about Dunning-Kruger! Second-order ignorance. Marvelous.
Someone here is a poster boy for Dunning-Kruger. (Hint: it's not Pete.)
So, in other words, your comment amounts to: "if we take this well-defined concept, and redefine it to mean something else, then it can mean...
I would be sarcastic about this, but honestly, it would be a wasted effort.
Well, it wasn't the STD part in itself, it's the combination with "vector" (which is also used in medicine) that makes it funny.
Separate names with a comma.
