Is This Mathematical Proof Logically Sound?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter solakis1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The proof presented aims to establish that for any real numbers A and B, if the product AB is greater than zero, then either both A and B are positive or both are negative. The logical structure of the proof utilizes contradiction by assuming the negation of the conditions and deriving inconsistencies. The conclusion confirms that the original statement holds true, demonstrating the soundness of the proof. The discussion also highlights the importance of clarity and acknowledgment in community interactions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic mathematical logic and proof techniques
  • Familiarity with real number properties and inequalities
  • Knowledge of logical operators and their implications
  • Experience with contradiction as a proof method
NEXT STEPS
  • Study advanced topics in mathematical logic, focusing on proof techniques
  • Explore the properties of real numbers and their implications in proofs
  • Learn about formal logic notation and its applications in mathematics
  • Investigate common pitfalls in mathematical proofs and how to avoid them
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of mathematics, and anyone interested in understanding logical proofs and their applications in real analysis.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K