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


by coverband
Tags: 3<7, 3|<7, 5<x, imply
coverband
coverband is offline
#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
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
'Math detective' analyzes odds for suspicious lottery wins
Pseudo-mathematics and financial charlatanism
sutupidmath
sutupidmath is offline
#2
Feb7-08, 10:27 AM
P: 1,635
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
sutupidmath is offline
#3
Feb7-08, 10:36 AM
P: 1,635
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
coverband is offline
#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
coverband is offline
#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
coverband is offline
#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
HallsofIvy is offline
#7
Feb7-08, 11:15 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,886
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
DeadWolfe is offline
#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
HallsofIvy is offline
#9
Feb7-08, 12:22 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,886
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
sutupidmath is offline
#10
Feb7-08, 02:45 PM
P: 1,635
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
coverband is offline
#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
matticus is offline
#12
Feb7-08, 04:26 PM
P: 107
well if x is greater than two it's certainly greater than 10...
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#13
Feb7-08, 04:34 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,886
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
HallsofIvy is offline
#14
Feb7-08, 04:36 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,886
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