MHB Is this the correct way to negate a mathematical statement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tmt1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the correct negation of a mathematical statement involving positive real numbers. The original statement asserts that for all positive real numbers \( r \) and \( p \), if \( p \cdot r \geq 100 \), then either \( r \) or \( p \) is greater than 10. The proposed negation is incorrect; the correct negation should state that there exist positive real numbers \( r \) and \( p \) such that \( p \cdot r \geq 100 \) and both \( r \) and \( p \) are less than or equal to 10. The key takeaway is that the negation of an implication is a conjunction of the premise and the negation of the conclusion. Understanding this distinction is crucial for accurately negating mathematical statements.
tmt1
Messages
230
Reaction score
0
$\forall $ positive real numbers $r$ and $p$ if $p \cdot r >= 100 $ then either $r$ or $p$ is greater than $10$

I am going for

$\exists$ positive real numbers $r$ and $p$ such that if $p \cdot r >= 100 $ then both $r$ or $p$ is lesser or equal to $10$Is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Close.

You are correct that the negation of:

$\forall x,y \in S: P(x,y)$

is:

$\exists x,y \in S: \neg(P(x,y))$

but you're slightly off on the negation of an implication.

The negation of: $A \implies B$ isn't $A \implies \neg B$, but rather: $A\ \&\ \neg B$.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top