MHB Is This Mathematical Proof Logically Sound?

  • Thread starter Thread starter solakis1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
solakis1
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Is the following proof ,proving $$\forall A\forall B[ 0<AB\Longrightarrow (0<A\wedge 0<B)\vee(A<0\wedge B<0)$$,correct??

Proof:

Let, 0<ab

Let, ~(0<a& 0<b)...............1

Let , ~(a<0&b<0)...............2

But 0<ab => ~(ab=0) => ~(a=0) and ~(b=0) => ~(a=0)......3

For ,$$ 0<a \Longrightarrow\frac{1}{a}<0\Longrightarrow(ab)\frac{1}{a}<0\frac{1}{a}\Longrightarrow b<0$$,since 0<ab, $$\Longrightarrow 0<a\wedge0<b$$ a contradiction by using (2)

Hence ~(0<a)................4

In a similar way we prove : a<0 => (a<0&b<0) ,a contradiction by using (3)

Hence ~(a<0).................5

Thus from (4) and (5) we have :

~(0<a) and ~(a<0) => ~( 0<a or a<0) => a=o ,a contradictio by using (3)

Hence ~~(0<a & 0<b) => 0<a & 0<b => (0<a &0<b)or( a<0 & b<0)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey Solakis!

I have just noticed that you have 160 posts and 0 posts in which you have thanked anyone.
For the record, apparently your posts got thanked 11 times.

Is there any reason you expect that anyone wants to respond to your posts, considering that this is a site where people are only volunteering?
 
I like Serena said:
Hey Solakis!

I have just noticed that you have 160 posts and 0 posts in which you have thanked anyone.
For the record, apparently your posts got thanked 11 times.

Is there any reason you expect that anyone wants to respond to your posts, considering that this is a site where people are only volunteering?

Thanks for reminding me
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top