Hello everyone!(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

This is a pretty strange question, perhaps.

I've studied logic and know very well the difference between A --> B and B --> A.

However, there's a specific problem that I often encounter in proofs in maths that I find strange.

For example: you get a certain P.D.E. and want to prove that there exists a solution and that it is unique. Then you prove: "if f(x) is a solution, then f(x) must be of a certain form (for example, f(x) = e^{x})". However, you also need to show that f(x) is a solution.

What I can't really imagine, is a situation in which I prove that if f(x) is a solution, then f(x) = e^{x}, but then to find out that e^{x}isn't a solution.

The only examples I could think of are "empty cases". For example, if you get the equation f'(x) +f(x) + 1 = f'(x) +f(x) + 2, I could say: if f(x) is a solution then f(x) = e^{x}. Since f(x) is never a solution (cause there is no solution) we get a claim of the form F --> T/F, which is always "T".

But are there other examples, other than empty cases, in which a solution must have the form f(x), but f(x) isn't a solution?

Confused :-)

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Logic confusion - formally clear but practically not so.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**