Finding fault in proof [contains logical quantifiers]

  • Thread starter Thread starter iopz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fault Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the incorrect theorem ∃x∈ℝ ∀y∈ℝ (xy^2 = y-x) and the flaws in the proof provided. The main error identified is the substitution of x with a variable dependent on y, specifically x = y(y^2+1), which violates the requirement that x must be a constant real number. The transformation of the theorem into logical quantifiers is also highlighted as a critical step in understanding the proof's failure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logical quantifiers in mathematics
  • Familiarity with real numbers and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of algebraic manipulation
  • Experience with theorem proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of logical quantifiers in mathematical proofs
  • Learn about the properties of real numbers and constants
  • Review algebraic manipulation techniques for proofs
  • Explore common pitfalls in theorem proving and how to avoid them
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding logical proofs and the intricacies of theorem validation.

iopz
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider the following incorrect theorem: ∃x∈ℝ ∀y∈ℝ (xy^2 = y-x)

[Translation (not part of the original problem statement): There is at least an x∈ℝ such that, for every y∈ℝ, (xy^2 = y-x).]

What's wrong with the following proof?

Let x = y(y^2+1), then
y-x=y-y/(y^2+1)=y^3/(y^2+1)=y/(y^2+1) * y^2=xy^2​

Homework Equations



1. (xy^2 = y-x)

2. x = y(y^2+1)

3. y-x=y-y/(y^2+1)=y^3/(y^2+1)=y/(y^2+1) * y^2=xy^2

The Attempt at a Solution



Since the first equation is to be proven and the third equation seem to be correct, i think that the problem lies in the second.
I have transformed the theorem as follow:
[∃x∈ℝ ∀y∈ℝ (xy^2 = y-x)] = [∃x(x∈ℝ∧∀y(y∈ℝ→(xy^2=y-x))]
From this, i thought that since one of the things to prove is that there is at least an actual x that is true for all y, the substitution done in equation 2 is not correct (since x is substituted not with an actual value but a free variable).
But I'm not sure if this is really the reason for why the proof is incorrect. Any help will be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
iopz said:
What's wrong with the following proof?

Let x = y(y^2+1)


This is already wrong. x is a single number and can't depend on y​
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: iopz
willem2 said:

This is already wrong. x is a single number and can't depend on y​
I see, thank you!
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K