yea if it isn't AxAxA or a+a+a
The numbers 2, 4, 7, 11 are neither strictly arithmetic nor geometric. In an arithmetic sequence, the difference between consecutive terms is constant, while in a geometric sequence, the ratio between consecutive terms is constant. Here, the differences between terms are 2, 3, and 4, suggesting a pattern of increasing increments. Following this pattern, the next two terms would be 16 (11 + 5) and 22 (16 + 6).
If I understand your question correctly, such a sequence is an = x cos(πx). It has neither an upper nor lower bound. It's divergent, but its limit is neither infinity nor negative infinity.
Neither true nor false. Some theorems can be proven using geometric arguments and methods, others cannot.
No. Although the ratios of the terms in the Fibonacci sequence do approach a constant, phi, in order for the Fibonacci sequence to be a geometric sequence the ratio of ALL of the terms has to be a constant, not just approaching one. A simple counterexample to show that this is not true is to notice that 1/1 is not equal to 2/1, nor is 3/2, 5/3, 8/5...
Neither, then nor; eg neither Jack nor John can ski.
The sequence 216 12 23 is neither arithmetic nor geometric.
The sequence is neither arithmetic nor geometric.
The sequence 2, 3, 5, 8, 12 is neither arithmetic nor geometric. In an arithmetic sequence, the difference between consecutive terms is constant, while in a geometric sequence, the ratio between consecutive terms is constant. In this sequence, there is no constant difference or ratio between consecutive terms, so it does not fit the criteria for either type of sequence.
The numbers 2, 4, 7, 11 are neither strictly arithmetic nor geometric. In an arithmetic sequence, the difference between consecutive terms is constant, while in a geometric sequence, the ratio between consecutive terms is constant. Here, the differences between terms are 2, 3, and 4, suggesting a pattern of increasing increments. Following this pattern, the next two terms would be 16 (11 + 5) and 22 (16 + 6).
If I understand your question correctly, such a sequence is an = x cos(πx). It has neither an upper nor lower bound. It's divergent, but its limit is neither infinity nor negative infinity.
Neither true nor false. Some theorems can be proven using geometric arguments and methods, others cannot.
No. Although the ratios of the terms in the Fibonacci sequence do approach a constant, phi, in order for the Fibonacci sequence to be a geometric sequence the ratio of ALL of the terms has to be a constant, not just approaching one. A simple counterexample to show that this is not true is to notice that 1/1 is not equal to 2/1, nor is 3/2, 5/3, 8/5...
Neither, then nor; eg neither Jack nor John can ski.
It is neither nor and either or. So, in a sentence, "he is neither funny, nor smart"
We use neither nor when we have to say two things that have not happened. Like neither me nor my friend was allowed to take the ride.
yes....Neither I nor him, knew she was capable of such
Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.