Register to reply

If 5<x+3<7 does this imply |x+3|<7 ?

by coverband
Tags: 3<7, 3|<7, 5<x, imply
Share this thread:
coverband
#1
Feb7-08, 10:17 AM
P: 167
If 5<x+3<7 does this imply |x+3|<7 ??
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Heat distributions help researchers to understand curved space
Professor quantifies how 'one thing leads to another'
Team announces construction of a formal computer-verified proof of the Kepler conjecture
sutupidmath
#2
Feb7-08, 10:27 AM
P: 1,633
Quote Quote by coverband View Post
If 5<x+3<7 does this imply |x+3|<7 ??
well |x+3|<7 implies that

-7<x+3<7, which means that -10<x<4

now you have 5<x+3<7
which means that 2< x<4, so what do u think now?
sutupidmath
#3
Feb7-08, 10:36 AM
P: 1,633
also, i do not think it is right to say 5<x+3<7, implies |x+3|<7, but rather when the first holds true, also the second will hold true. the vice versa does not hold true.

coverband
#4
Feb7-08, 10:37 AM
P: 167
If 5<x+3<7 does this imply |x+3|<7 ?

I know its just my analysis notes that subject is so weird the lecturer writes things down that don't make sense and then looks at you like you've got ten heads when you question it. Weird subject man
coverband
#5
Feb7-08, 10:38 AM
P: 167
"also, i do not think it is right to say 5<x+3<7, implies |x+3|<7, but rather when the first holds true, also the second will hold true. the vice versa does not hold true."

Thanks i think
coverband
#6
Feb7-08, 10:42 AM
P: 167
Also if |x-3| < A/|x+3| we need to bound |x+3| right?

Now if you take |2/3x||x-1/2| < A why do we bound |2/3x| and not |3x/2| ?
HallsofIvy
#7
Feb7-08, 11:15 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,569
Quote Quote by coverband View Post
I know its just my analysis notes that subject is so weird the lecturer writes things down that don't make sense and then looks at you like you've got ten heads when you question it. Weird subject man
Why do you consider that weird or that it doesn't make sense? Frankly when I read your first post I thought it was by a student in an algebra or pre-calculus class. Yes, I can imagine a teacher, in an analysis class who had written "if 5<x+3<7 then |x+3|<7", thinking "Oh, my god, am I going to have to go back and teach basic algebra?" if a student questioned it.

If 5< x+ 3< 7 then it is certainly true that -7< x+ 3< 7 so |x+3|< 7.
DeadWolfe
#8
Feb7-08, 11:46 AM
P: 461
Quote Quote by sutupidmath View Post
also, i do not think it is right to say 5<x+3<7, implies |x+3|<7, but rather when the first holds true, also the second will hold true. the vice versa does not hold true.
The linguistic convention in math is that "A implies B' means precisely that there is no case when A holds and B doesn't.
HallsofIvy
#9
Feb7-08, 12:22 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,569
Quote Quote by sutupidmath View Post
also, i do not think it is right to say 5<x+3<7, implies |x+3|<7, but rather when the first holds true, also the second will hold true. the vice versa does not hold true.
?? That is exactly what "implies" means. "A implies B" means that whenever A is true, B is also true. It does NOT mean that the converse, "If B is true then A is true" holds.
sutupidmath
#10
Feb7-08, 02:45 PM
P: 1,633
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy View Post
?? That is exactly what "implies" means. "A implies B" means that whenever A is true, B is also true. It does NOT mean that the converse, "If B is true then A is true" holds.
Really!!!! It might be because of my english not being my first language then! sorry, my bad!
coverband
#11
Feb7-08, 03:22 PM
P: 167
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy View Post
If 5< x+ 3< 7 then it is certainly true that -7< x+ 3< 7 so |x+3|< 7.
But in the first one 2<x<4, in the second one -10<x<4
matticus
#12
Feb7-08, 04:26 PM
P: 107
well if x is greater than two it's certainly greater than 10...
HallsofIvy
#13
Feb7-08, 04:34 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,569
Quote Quote by matticus View Post
well if x is greater than two it's certainly greater than 10...
!!!! Oh, wait, that was a typo. "greater than -10".
HallsofIvy
#14
Feb7-08, 04:36 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,569
Quote Quote by coverband View Post
But in the first one 2<x<4, in the second one -10<x<4
That's why it is not a "biconditional". 2< x< 4 implies -10< x< 4 (because -10< 2) but the other way is not true.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Does Amp=0 imply that a wave has 0 speed? Introductory Physics Homework 2
Why does differentiability imply continuity? Calculus & Beyond Homework 6
Does SR imply determinism Special & General Relativity 46
Does expansion imply a metric Special & General Relativity 5
Why does Isotropy of L imply L(v^2)? Classical Physics 3