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

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AnInsect
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the logical implications of inequalities and equalities in mathematical expressions involving variables x, y, and z. The user proposes that if x is greater than y and y is greater than x, both must be equal, leading to the conclusion that their difference is zero. The conversation highlights the logical contradiction of using 'greater than' (>) in this context, suggesting that the correct symbol to use is 'less than or equal to' (≤) to validate the conclusion that x equals y. The variable z is defined as any real number representing the difference between x and y.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic algebraic concepts, including inequalities and equalities.
  • Familiarity with mathematical symbols such as 'greater than' (>), 'less than' (<), and 'less than or equal to' (≤).
  • Knowledge of real numbers and their properties.
  • Ability to interpret logical contradictions in mathematical statements.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of inequalities and equalities in algebra.
  • Learn about logical contradictions and their implications in mathematical proofs.
  • Explore the use of variables in algebraic expressions and their significance.
  • Investigate the concept of limits and continuity in real numbers.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the logical foundations of inequalities and equalities in algebra.

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 '[itex]\leq[/itex]' which means "less than or equal to." In that case x [itex]\leq[/itex] y and y [itex]\leq[/itex] 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K