Select all of the proof techniques (from Ch 4 of Epp) that could NOT be a plausible first step in proving the following statement. (You likely will not understand the statement. Nonetheless, you should be able to answer correctly.) Please note that by "direct proof for universal statements" we mean any proof that starts from the premises (of a universally quantified statement) and derives the conclusion based on these premises and other known facts. ∃c ∈ R+, ∃n0 ∈ Z+, ∀n ∈ Z+, T(n) > c*2n.
A. Constructive or non-constructive proofs of existence
B. Exhaustive proof of universals
C. Direct proof for universal statement
D. Direct proof for existential statement
There supposed to be 2 answers for this question. I know C is one correct answer but I can't find the other one.
IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS COMMENT BELOW I WILL BE TTHERE TO HELP YOU..ALL THE BEST.
AS FOR GIVEN DATA...
A. Constructive or non-constructive proofs of existence
B. Exhaustive proof of universals
Select all of the proof techniques (from Ch 4 of Epp) that could NOT be a plausible first step in proving the following...