Can someone tell me if this makes sense? (Equalities question)

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnInsect
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the mathematical relationships between variables x and y, exploring the implications of inequalities and equalities. It suggests that if x is greater than y and vice versa, they must be equal, leading to the conclusion that both must differ by zero. The conversation highlights a logical contradiction in stating x > y and y > x simultaneously, emphasizing the need for clarity in definitions. The use of the symbol "≤" is proposed as a more accurate representation of the relationships, allowing for the conclusion that x equals y. Overall, the exchange seeks to clarify the proof while acknowledging the complexity of the concepts involved.
AnInsect
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
x>or=y
y>or=x
x=y+z
y=x+z

y=y+z+z
0=2z
0=z

x=y+z
x=y+0
x=y

I think what I just said is that if x is greater than y and y is greater than x, they must be greater than each other by zero, thus proving they are equal. It also works if x is greater than y by z and y is greater than x by say q (though in the end both q and z are zero).

Does this make any sense?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
AnInsect said:
x>y
y>x
x=y+z
y=x+z

y=y+z+z
0=2z
0=z

x=y+z
x=y+0
x=y

I think what I just said is that if x is greater than y and y is greater than x, they must be greater than each other by zero, thus proving they are equal. It also works if x is greater than y by z and y is greater than x by say q (though in the end both q and z are zero).

Does this make any sense?

x > y precludes x = y by convention. So x > y and y > x is a logical contradiction, if by '<' you intend the usual meaning.

Your conclusion is valid if you use the symbol '\leq' which means "less than or equal to." In that case x \leq y and y \leq x do indeed imply that x = y. However I'm a little confused by your proof. What is z, is it supposed to be a constant? You essentially have the right idea but you need to make it a little more clear.
 
Last edited:
^Thank you for the clarification! I noticed that too, but then it sort of makes the entire thing redundant doesn't it? Ah well, journey's better than the destination I guess.

^z is any real number. You know, just a variable representing the difference between x and y.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top