Either or statement from Abstract Algebra Book

In summary: That is, 'either P or Q' is equivalent to '(if NOT P then Q) AND (if P then NOT Q)'.That is NOT true. The statement “either P or Q” is just equivalent to “if not P then Q”. (It is also equivalent to “if not Q then P”.) It DOES NOT imply “if P then not Q”.
  • #1
cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
349
23
Dear Everyone,

What are the strategies from proving a either-or statements? Is there a way for me to write an either-or statement into a standard if-then statements? For example, this exercise is from Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra 2nd, "Let $x$ be a nilpotent element of the commutative ring $R$. Prove that $x$ is either a zero or an zero divisor."

Any advice will be helpful.

Thanks
Cbarker1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Cbarker1.

Statements of the form “$P$ or $Q$” are generally proved as follows: either assume that $P$ is false and prove that $Q$ must be true, or assume that $Q$ is false and prove that $P$ must be true.

Thus, to prove that $x$ is either zero or a zero divisor, the best thing to do is that assume that $x\ne0$ and show that $x$ is a zero divisor. Alternatively, you can assume that $x$ is not a zero divisor and show that $x$ must be $0$ – but this might be trickier. Choose whichever is the easier.
 
  • #3
Olinguito said:
Hi Cbarker1.

Statements of the form “$P$ or $Q$” are generally proved as follows: either assume that $P$ is false and prove that $Q$ must be true, or assume that $Q$ is false and prove that $P$ must be true.

Thus, to prove that $x$ is either zero or a zero divisor, the best thing to do is that assume that $x\ne0$ and show that $x$ is a zero divisor. Alternatively, you can assume that $x$ is not a zero divisor and show that $x$ must be $0$ – but this might be trickier. Choose whichever is the easier.
So a proof would look this: Let $x\ne 0$. Let $x^{m-1}$ for $m\ge 1$. Then $x\cdot x^{m-1}=x^{m}=0$. Thus $x$ is a zero divisor, QED?
 
  • #4
Cbarker1 said:
So a proof would look this: Let $x\ne 0$. Let $x^{m-1}$ for $m\ge 1$. Then $x\cdot x^{m-1}=x^{m}=0$. Thus $x$ is a zero divisor, QED?

Yes, that’s correct.
 
  • #5
Olinguito said:
Yes, that’s correct.
Do I have to prove the alternative statement?
 
  • #6
No.
 
  • #7
Erm... formally speaking, yes, we also need to prove the other statement.

That is, 'either P or Q' is equivalent to '(if NOT P then Q) AND (if P then NOT Q)'.

You have proven that if $x\ne 0$ that then $x$ is a zero-divisor.
So formally we also need that if $x=0$ that then $x$ is NOT a zero-divisor.

Unfortunately $x=0$ is a zero-divisor.
It means that your problem statement is incorrect.
It should just have said to prove that '$x$ is a zero-divisor'.
Or equivalently to prove that '$x=0$ or $x$ is a zero-divisor'. That is, without the 'either'.

To be honest, it's not unusual that people are sloppy with the use of either-or. That does not make it correct though.
 
  • #8
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Erm... formally speaking, yes, we also need to prove the other statement.

That is, 'either P or Q' is equivalent to '(if NOT P then Q) AND (if P then NOT Q)'.

You have proven that if $x\ne 0$ that then $x$ is a zero-divisor.
So formally we also need that if $x=0$ that then $x$ is NOT a zero-divisor.

Unfortunately $x=0$ is a zero-divisor.
It means that your problem statement is incorrect.
It should just have said to prove that '$x$ is a zero-divisor'.
Or equivalently to prove that '$x=0$ or $x$ is a zero-divisor'. That is, without the 'either'.

To be honest, it's not unusual that people are sloppy with the use of either-or. That does not make it correct though.

How to begin the second proof? I know I have to write down "Suppose x=0..."
 
  • #9
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Erm... formally speaking, yes, we also need to prove the other statement.

That is, 'either P or Q' is equivalent to '(if NOT P then Q) AND (if P then NOT Q)'.

That is NOT true. The statement “either P or Q” is just equivalent to “if not P then Q”. (It is also equivalent to “if not Q then P”.) It DOES NOT imply “if P then not Q”.

That is because in logic or is taken to be inclusive, i.e. “P or Q” means “P or Q or both”.


Cbarker1 said:
How to begin the second proof? I know I have to write down "Suppose x=0..."

You don’t have to!
 
  • #10
Olinguito said:
That is NOT true. The statement “either P or Q” is just equivalent to “if not P then Q”. (It is also equivalent to “if not Q then P”.) It DOES NOT imply “if P then not Q”.

That is because in logic or is taken to be inclusive, i.e. “P or Q” means “P or Q or both”.

Cambridge Dictionary

either-or
adjective [ before noun ]
uk ​ /ˌaɪ.ðərˈɔːr/ /ˌiː.ðərˈɔːr/ us ​ /ˌiː.ðɚˈɔːr/ /ˌaɪ.ðɚˈɔːr/

Used to refer to a situation in which there is a choice between two different plans of action, but both together are not possible:
It's an either-or situation - we can buy a new car this year or we can go on holiday, but we can't do both.

Cbarker1 said:
How to begin the second proof? I know I have to write down "Suppose x=0..."

Let's get the definition clear first.
To be honest, with the definition as I know it and apply it, your problem statement is broken.
 
  • #11
Sorry, you are using a dictionary that defines the word in everyday English use, not as it is generally used in mathematics. In mathematics, this is how the word or is generally used.

In logic, or by itself means the inclusive or, distinguished from an exclusive or, which is false when both of its arguments are true, while an "or" is true in that case.

Klaas van Aarsen said:
To be honest, with the definition as I know it and apply it, your problem statement is broken.

So fix your understanding of the definition!
 
  • #12
Olinguito said:
That is because in logic or is taken to be inclusive, i.e. “P or Q” means “P or Q or both”.
Simple "or" is indeed inclusive OR in mathematics, but "either... or... ", in my experience, is used in math to mean exclusive OR. And the book says "either a zero or a zero divisor". So I agree with Klaas, even though I also agree that natural language definitions are not always applicable to math. For example, Russian legal documents keep using phrases like "either theft or injury" when they mean that both things are possible at the same time.

It turns out that the book defines a zero divisor as a nonzero element $a$ of a ring $R$ if there is a nonzero element $b$ in $R$ such that either $ab = 0$ or $ba = 0$. So exclusive OR is correct in the original statement.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Simple "or" is indeed inclusive OR in mathematics, but "either... or... " is, in my experience, is used in math to mean exclusive OR. And the book says "either a zero or a zero divisor". So I agree with Klaas, even though I also agree that natural language definitions are not always applicable to math. For example, Russian legal documents keep using phrases like "either theft or injury" when they mean that both things are possible at the same time.

It turns out that the book defines a zero divisor as a nonzero element $a$ of a ring $R$ if there is a nonzero element $b$ in $R$ such that either $ab = 0$ or $ba = 0$. So exclusive OR is correct in the original statement.
Thanks for clearing it up.
 
  • #14
Assuming the either-or is indeed intended as an exclusive OR, then the argument is as follows.

Assume $x=0$, then $x$ is nilpotent and therefore a solution to the problem.
Furthermore $x$ is not a zero-divisor since the book's definition explicitly excludes $0$.
QED
 
  • #15
Evgeny.Makarov said:
It turns out that the book defines a zero divisor as a nonzero element $a$ of a ring $R$ if there is a nonzero element $b$ in $R$ such that either $ab = 0$ or $ba = 0$

Urghh... so the book itself uses either-or to mean an inclusive OR, doesn't it?

Next time I'll ask for the definitions of the author of the book. And how he uses either-or assuming he is at least consistent.
 
  • #16
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Next time I'll ask for the definitions of the author of the book. And how he uses either-or assuming he is at least consistent.

I suggest that next time you keep a more open mind and try not to impose your own views before analysing a situation.
 
  • #17
Olinguito said:
I suggest that next time you keep a more open mind and try not to impose your own views before analysing a situation.

Right back at you!

In this case I posted what I was sure was right based on my background in logic. I also checked the wiki definition of a zero-divisor.
You challenged that.
Before posting again, I searched a bit and gave a reference. While doing so I noticed that the wiki article that you referenced later, did not actually mention the either-or construction.

You did none of that. Instead you kept second guessing me, and challenge me to the point of provocation. And you tried to impose your view without proper reference.
I had actually already abandoned this thread as a bad one with no room to get to a correct mathematical resolution.
That is when Evgeny posted, and when you actually thanked him for it. So I gave it another shot. And yet here we are.
 

FAQ: Either or statement from Abstract Algebra Book

1. What is the "either or" statement in abstract algebra?

The "either or" statement in abstract algebra refers to a logical statement that presents two options, where only one can be true. This is commonly used in mathematical proofs to show that a certain property or relationship must hold in one of the options.

2. How is the "either or" statement used in abstract algebra?

In abstract algebra, the "either or" statement is often used in conjunction with other logical statements, such as "if-then" statements, to prove theorems and properties. It allows for the elimination of one option, leaving only the desired outcome to be proven.

3. Can the "either or" statement be used in other fields of science?

Yes, the "either or" statement can be used in various fields of science, including mathematics, computer science, and physics. It is a fundamental concept in logic and can be applied in many different contexts.

4. What is the difference between an "either or" statement and an "if-then" statement?

The main difference between an "either or" statement and an "if-then" statement is that the former presents two options, while the latter presents a conditional relationship. In other words, an "either or" statement states that one of two options must be true, while an "if-then" statement states that if one condition is met, then another will follow.

5. How can I use the "either or" statement in my own research or experiments?

The "either or" statement can be used in various ways in research and experiments, depending on the field of study. In abstract algebra, it can be used to prove theorems and properties. In other fields, it can be used to eliminate options or to make logical deductions. It is a useful tool for organizing and presenting information in a clear and concise manner.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top