Intro to abstract math—basic notation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around simplifying a logical statement involving inequalities, specifically the expression (3<4) ∧ (3<6). Participants are exploring the implications of these inequalities and the validity of various simplifications.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants attempt to simplify the expression to 3<4<6, questioning whether this assumption is valid without knowing the relationship between 4 and 6. Others consider the redundancy of the second inequality if the first is true.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the validity of certain simplifications and the implications of assuming relationships between numbers. There is no explicit consensus, but various interpretations and approaches are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the potential confusion arising from the problem's wording and suggest that additional context might clarify the intent behind the simplification task.

TyroneTheDino
Messages
46
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Simplify the following statement as much as you can:

(b).
##(3<4) \wedge (3<6)##

Homework Equations


##\wedge= and##

The Attempt at a Solution


I figured that I could just write this as ##3<4<6##,
but then I considered what if I didn't know that ##4<6##
If it was just ##(3<x)\wedge (3<y)##, then I would have to consider that I don't know either x or y.
Is it okay to say that ##3<4<6## though I just assume that ##4<6##?
Or is statement already simplified enough.
Is ##3<4, 6## a way to get around this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TyroneTheDino said:

Homework Statement


Simplify the following statement as much as you can:

(b).
##(3<4) \wedge (3<6)##

Homework Equations


##\wedge= and##

The Attempt at a Solution


I figured that I could just write this as ##3<4<6##,
If 3 < 4, then 3 is automatically smaller than 6, so that latter statement is redundant.
TyroneTheDino said:
but then I considered what if I didn't know that ##4<6##
You know how to count to 10, right? Then you know that 4 < 6.
TyroneTheDino said:
If it was just ##(3<x)\wedge (3<y)##, then I would have to consider that I don't know either x or y.
Is it okay to say that ##3<4<6## though I just assume that ##4<6##?
Or is statement already simplified enough.
Is ##3<4, 6## a way to get around this?
No, 3 < 4, 6 is not any sort of standard notation.
 
I would not say "3< 4< 6" because "3 is less than 4 and 3 is less than 6" does NOT, as you say, say that "4< 6". I think the most "simplified" form is just what I said before: "3 is less than 4 and 3 is less than 6" or perhaps "3 is less that either 4 or 6". If you take it as given that 4< 6 then "3< 4 and 3< 6" is equivalent to "3< 4" since then "3< 6" follows immediately.
 
Are you allowed to replace a statement with a symbol that means "true"? The number 1 is often used for that purpose. (0 is used for "false").

If the problem had asked you to simplify ##\{x\in\mathbb R|(x<4)\land(x<6)\}##, I would have said ##\{x\in\mathbb R|x<4\}##. (Since 4<6, the statements "x<4" and "x<4 and x<6") are equivalent for all real numbers x). But here I don't think it makes sense to use that 4<6.

The problem is kind of weird. It might help if you tell us where you found it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K