Help me prove or disprove these claims

  • Thread starter Melodia
  • Start date
In summary: For the first problem, you should first sort out for yourself whether it is true or not; this will say whether you want to give a proof or a disproof. For this first step, it can help to look at examples for x and z to help see what is going on.For the second problem, you can try to prove it by translating it over.
  • #1
Melodia
18
0

Homework Statement


Heya everyone, I need help proving or disproving these claims:

6fHo9.jpg


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


This definition of the floor totally confused me, I don't know how to start this problem as I don't recognize anything such as axioms or formulas from the claim. Please give me some pointers in the right direction, thanks in advance!

(Yeah I know this is my third question, there are just so many problems and I'm running into a lot of dead ends) ^^
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Melodia said:
... This definition of the floor totally confused me

It may make more sense if you hear the definition read from the formula in English.

The definition you have provided for floor reads as follows: y is equal to the floor of x if and only if
  • y is an integer, and
  • y is less than or equal to x, and
  • for every other integer z, if z is less than or equal to x, then it is also less than or equal to y.

As for the proofs, are you required to use formal proof systems from formal logic in full, or can you be a little bit less formalized?

Cheers -- sylas
 
  • #3
Hmm I'm supposed to use the formal method of proving, in this form:
Code:
Assume x is in R
     Assume p(x)
          Then r1(x)
          Then r2(x)
          ...
          Then q(x)
     Then p(x) ) q(x). # assuming antecedent leads to consequent
Then for all x in R, p(x) => q(x)

But some general ideas on the steps I should tackle these three problems would be fine too! So I can try to work them out.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
if you can prove it without writing it out "pedantically", then you can probably just translate it over.

for the first question, you can prove that by considering if x is not an integer (if it were an integer, then i) is true by definition). So if x is not an integer, you can express it as a/b, but since a/b is not an integer, this will not divide out evenly. Now you can use the division algorithm and consider the "quotient" and remainder.
 
  • #5
wisvuze said:
if you can prove it without writing it out "pedantically", then you can probably just translate it over.

Yes. An informal proof is really just a persuasive outline of how you could make a formal proof if required.

for the first question, you can prove that by considering if x is not an integer (if it were an integer, then i) is true by definition). So if x is not an integer, you can express it as a/b, but since a/b is not an integer, this will not divide out evenly. Now you can use the division algorithm and consider the "quotient" and remainder.

?? Don't use division; division doesn't show up in the problems. I can't see what you are attempting there or how it could work.

For the first problem, you should first sort out for yourself whether it is true or not; this will say whether you want to give a proof or a disproof. For this first step, it can help to look at examples for x and z to help see what is going on. For example, see if it is true for x=1.7 and z=-5.

Floor(1.7) is 1
Floor(1.7 + -5) = Floor(-3.3) = -4 = Floor(1.7) + -5

This looks promising, and might let you think that the theorem is true, so you need a proof.

The proof needs to use the definition you have been given. So can you prove that Floor(x)+z satisfies the required properties to be equal to Floor(x+z)?

Cheers -- sylas
 
  • #6
sylas said:
Yes. An informal proof is really just a persuasive outline of how you could make a formal proof if required.



?? Don't use division; division doesn't show up in the problems. I can't see what you are attempting there or how it could work.

For the first problem, you should first sort out for yourself whether it is true or not; this will say whether you want to give a proof or a disproof. For this first step, it can help to look at examples for x and z to help see what is going on. For example, see if it is true for x=1.7 and z=-5.

Floor(1.7) is 1
Floor(1.7 + -5) = Floor(-3.3) = -4 = Floor(1.7) + -5

This looks promising, and might let you think that the theorem is true, so you need a proof.

The proof needs to use the definition you have been given. So can you prove that Floor(x)+z satisfies the required properties to be equal to Floor(x+z)?

Cheers -- sylas
The example makes sense, however I'm now stuck at the actually proving it part ^^
So far I've got:

Code:
Assume x is in R and z is in Z
	By definition of floor of x, [x] <= x
		Then ([x] + z) <= (x + z)
		
                ...(but how do I manipulate ([x] + z) <= (x + z) into [x + z] = [x] + z?)
                or do I simply plug in a few values and then if all works, just say it's proven?
	

Then for all x in R and z in Z, [x + z] = [x] + z
 
  • #7
Melodia said:
The example makes sense, however I'm now stuck at the actually proving it part ^^
So far I've got:

Code:
Assume x is in R and z is in Z
	By definition of floor of x, [x] <= x
		Then ([x] + z) <= (x + z)
		
                ...(but how do I manipulate ([x] + z) <= (x + z) into [x + z] = [x] + z?)
                or do I simply plug in a few values and then if all works, just say it's proven?
	

Then for all x in R and z in Z, [x + z] = [x] + z
Why are you writing your proof in a [ code] block?
 
  • #8
Oh because I wanted the indentation to make it look neater.
 
  • #9
Melodia said:
...(but how do I manipulate ([x] + z) <= (x + z) into [x + z] = [x] + z?)
or do I simply plug in a few values and then if all works, just say it's proven?
...

You don't manipulate it: you show that it satisfies the two properties. That is if y is an integer expression for which you can show
[tex]y \leq x \wedge (\forall z \in \mathbb{Z} : z \leq x \Rightarrow z \leq y)[/tex]​
then from your definition statement, you can prove
[tex]y = \lfloor x \rfloor[/tex]​

In this case your "x" is actually the expression x+z, and you are wanting to show [x+z] = [x]+z. So you have to simply show [x]+z satisfies the two properties.

You've obtained the first one: [x]+z <= x+z

Now you have to show
[tex]\forall z \in \mathbb{Z} : z \leq x \Rightarrow z \leq y[/tex]​
except that you need the "x" to be "x+z", and you need the y to be "[x]+z". Be careful. The quantified variable used here is "z", and so you will have to change the name of that variable to avoid interfering with the z you already have in use. I suggest you change the quantified variable to "w", and then substitute the expressions for x and y.

Is this making sense?

Cheers -- sylas
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Melodia said:
Oh because I wanted the indentation to make it look neater.
Indentation is normally used in programming to show the extent of some control structure, such as a for loop or an if ... else block. It's not primarily used in coding to make it look neater.

It makes no difference to me, though. I was just curious why you were formatting your stuff that way. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
 

What is the scientific method and how does it apply to proving or disproving claims?

The scientific method is a systematic process used by scientists to answer questions and test hypotheses. It involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis, designing and conducting experiments, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. When it comes to proving or disproving claims, the scientific method is used to evaluate the validity of the claim through evidence-based research.

What makes a claim valid or invalid in the scientific community?

A claim is considered valid in the scientific community if it is supported by empirical evidence that has been rigorously tested and analyzed. This evidence must be reproducible and peer-reviewed by experts in the field. Claims that are not supported by evidence or are based on personal beliefs or opinions are considered invalid in the scientific community.

How do you determine the reliability of evidence used to prove or disprove a claim?

The reliability of evidence is determined by its source, methodology, and consistency. Evidence from reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed journals or government agencies, is generally more reliable. The methodology used to collect the evidence should also be carefully evaluated for potential biases or flaws. Additionally, evidence that has been replicated by multiple studies or researchers is considered more reliable than a single study.

What role does statistics play in proving or disproving claims?

Statistics are essential in evaluating the significance and reliability of evidence. They can help determine whether the results of a study are due to chance or if there is a significant relationship between variables. Statistical analysis also allows for the comparison of data and the identification of patterns or trends, which can support or refute a claim.

How can scientists ensure objectivity and avoid bias when conducting research to prove or disprove claims?

Scientists use various methods to ensure objectivity and avoid bias in their research. These include using control groups, double-blind studies, and randomization. They also carefully design experiments and collect and analyze data without any preconceived notions or preferences. Additionally, peer review and replication of studies by other researchers can help identify and eliminate any potential biases in the research process.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
496
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
19
Views
675
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
964
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
701
Replies
1
Views
723
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
975
Replies
1
Views
434
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top