My difficulties in the text, How to Prove It 2e by Velleman

In summary, the statement \{n^2 + n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb{N}\} \subseteq \{2n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb{N}\} can be analyzed as \forall n \in \mathbb{N} \exists m \in \mathbb{N} (n^2 + n + 1 = 2m + 1), using only the symbols \in, \notin, =, ≠, \wedge, \vee, \rightarrow, \leftrightarrow, \forall, and \exists, and using equivalences to get rid of any occurrences of \neg. This solution is derived from the definition of set
  • #1
Remi Aure
2
0
I'm creating this thread for any major difficulties I come across in How to Prove It: A Structured Approach, 2nd edition by Daniel J. Velleman. This is a self-study (with any assistance if I can get it).

Homework Statement



The problem is to analyze the logical form of the given statement, using only the symbols [itex]\in[/itex], [itex]\notin[/itex], [itex]=[/itex], [itex]≠[/itex], [itex]\wedge[/itex], [itex]\vee[/itex], [itex]\rightarrow[/itex], [itex]\leftrightarrow[/itex], [itex]\forall[/itex], and [itex]\exists[/itex] in our answer, but not [itex]\subseteq[/itex], is-not-[itex]\subseteq[/itex], [itex]\wp[/itex], [itex]\cup[/itex], [itex]\cap[/itex], \, [itex]\{[/itex], [itex]\}[/itex], or [itex]\neg[/itex]. (Thus, as the text goes on to say, we must write out the definitions of some set theory notation, and we must use equivalences to get rid of any occurrences of [itex]\neg[/itex].) This is Exercise 1-(c) on page 81.

Homework Equations



The statement is [itex]\{n^2 + n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb N\} \subseteq \{2n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb N\}[/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution



Although it seems correct to me, it's not exactly the solution given in the Appendix of solutions. His answer seems to be derived from facts that I can't find or discern from any of the previous discussion. What I ideally want is to see his solution derived in a way that I should've known from what's been explained in the text so far. If not that then one or two standard definitions or logical equivalences that might or might not have been introduced but nonetheless work to get me to the same result.

My answer:

[itex]\{n^2 + n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb N\} \subseteq \{2n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb N\}[/itex]​
[itex]\equiv \forall x(x \in \{n^2 + n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb N\} \rightarrow x \in \{2n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb N\})[/itex]​
[itex]\equiv \forall x(x \in \{y\ |\ \exists n \in \mathbb N (y = n^2 + n + 1)\} \rightarrow x \in \{y\ |\ \exists n \in \mathbb N (y = 2n + 1)\})[/itex]​
[itex]\equiv \forall x(\exists n \in \mathbb N (x = n^2 + n + 1) \rightarrow \exists n \in \mathbb N (x = 2n + 1)).[/itex]​

His answer:
[itex]. . . \equiv \forall n \in \mathbb N \exists m \in \mathbb N (n^2 + n + 1 = 2m + 1).[/itex]​
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
After a day, I made a parallel thread at mathhelpforum.com,

http://mathhelpforum.com/advanced-m...ext-_how-prove-structured-approach-2-ed_.html.

I eventually found a solution while interacting with that thread, but since Physics Forums is broader in scope and since these epic study threads are the only kinds I plan to make over a long period, I'll keep the developments of the cross-site threads congruous.

Critical or other feedback is always welcome.

New Solution to Exercise 1-(c) page 81

If one of the examples on page 74 says that the logical form of [itex]\{x_i\ |\ i \in I\} \subseteq A[/itex] can be analyzed as [itex]\forall i \in I(x_i \in A)[/itex], then the logical form of the statement [itex]\{n^2 + n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb{N}\} \subseteq \{2n + 1\ |\ n \in \mathbb{N}\}[/itex] can be analyzed as

[itex]\equiv \forall n \in \mathbb{N} (n^2 + n + 1 \in \{2m + 1\ |\ m \in \mathbb{N}\})[/itex]

[itex]\equiv \forall n \in \mathbb{N} (n^2 + n + 1 \in \{x\ |\ \exists m \in \mathbb{N} (x = 2m + 1)\})[/itex]

[itex]\equiv \forall n \in \mathbb{N} (\exists m \in \mathbb{N} (n^2 + n + 1 = 2m + 1))[/itex]

[itex]\equiv \forall n \in \mathbb{N} \exists m \in \mathbb{N} (n^2 + n + 1 = 2m + 1)[/itex].​
 
Last edited:

1. What is the main purpose of the text "How to Prove It 2e" by Velleman?

The main purpose of the text is to teach readers how to construct and write mathematical proofs effectively and efficiently.

2. Is "How to Prove It 2e" suitable for beginners in mathematics?

Yes, the text is suitable for beginners as it starts with basic concepts and gradually builds upon them to more advanced topics.

3. How is the content of "How to Prove It 2e" organized?

The text is organized into three parts: the basics of mathematical language and proof writing, techniques for constructing proofs, and applications of proofs in various mathematical fields.

4. Are there any exercises or practice problems included in "How to Prove It 2e"?

Yes, there are numerous exercises and practice problems included in each chapter to help readers apply and reinforce the concepts learned.

5. Can "How to Prove It 2e" be used as a reference guide?

Yes, the text can also serve as a reference guide for those who need to review or refresh their knowledge on proof writing and techniques.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
808
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
573
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
516
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
685
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
458
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
264
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
511
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
501
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
545
Back
Top