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

  • Thread starter Thread starter tmt1
  • Start date Start date
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: $A\ \&\ \neg B$.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...

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