Discrete math - simple formalism question

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on formalizing statements in discrete mathematics, specifically regarding the existence of rational numbers between real numbers and the relationship between two real numbers where one is less than the other, yet their squares are reversed. The user initially proposed a formalization for the first statement, which was corrected by a teacher's version that included an implication arrow. The second statement was confirmed as correct, with a suggestion to include "s.t." for clarity. The implication arrow emphasizes the logical connection necessary for the formalization.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of formal logic notation in mathematics
  • Familiarity with real numbers and rational numbers
  • Basic knowledge of discrete mathematics concepts
  • Experience with mathematical proofs and formal statements
NEXT STEPS
  • Study formal logic implications in mathematical statements
  • Explore the properties of real and rational numbers
  • Learn about formalizing mathematical statements in discrete mathematics
  • Investigate the concept of "such that" (s.t.) in mathematical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those studying discrete math, formal logic, and mathematical proofs, will benefit from this discussion.

oferon
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
I never used discrete math terms in english before, so I hope it sounds clear enough:

Formalize the following:
1) Between every two different real numbers there is a rational number
2) There exist real numbers x and y, such that x is smaller than y, yet x^2 is bigger than y^2

Now the solution I wrote for 1 is:

\forall x,y \in R.x\neq y \hspace{5 mm} \exists z\in Q.\left\langle[(x<z)\wedge (y>z)]\vee [(y<z)\wedge (x>z)]\right\rangleOnly then I checked the solution given by my teacher said:

\forall x,y \in R.x\neq y \Rightarrow \exists z\in Q.\left\langle[(x<z)\wedge (y>z)]\vee [(y<z)\wedge (x>z)]\right\rangle

Now, where did this implication arrow come from, and is it necessary? If so, what's wrong with my solution then?For the second sentence we didn't get any solution, so I just want to confirm the following is correct:

\exists x,y\in R.[(x<y)\wedge (x^2>y^2)]Thanks in advance for your time :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org


The 'implies' is there to emphasize the logical connection there. If you have two reals like that, then you can find such a z. Moreover, if you can't find such a z, then x=y (or one of x,y is not a real number, which seems less likely).
I probably would have left out the arrow as well, since the question is phrased as a statement, and not an implication. In any case, the sentence you wrote would usually be acceptable, but since your prof. wants the arrow in, leave it.

Your second answer looks fine to me, unless you want to put a little "s.t." in between there.
 
Hi gustav
Thanks for your reply
Could you just explain what "s.t." means? I'm not very familiar with the english terms.
Thanks a bunch
 
s.t. = 'such that'. "There exist x and y such that..." means there exist x and y having the following property.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K