Making an existentially-quanified statement to define composite number and prime

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iwantttt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Composite Prime
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around formulating existentially quantified statements to define composite and prime numbers. The original poster presents initial attempts at expressing these definitions using symbolic notation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the structure of existentially quantified statements for composite numbers and the definition of prime numbers. There is an emphasis on the conditions that must be satisfied for each definition, with some questioning the validity of the original formulations.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide feedback on the original attempts, suggesting modifications to improve clarity and correctness. There is a collaborative effort to refine the statements, with one participant expressing satisfaction with a revised version.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the nuances of mathematical definitions and the implications of their statements, indicating a focus on precision in symbolic notation. The original poster expresses uncertainty about their approach, highlighting the exploratory nature of the discussion.

Iwantttt
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Sorry if I'm writing on wrong board.

Homework Statement



1) Write an existentially quantified statement to express conditions for composite number ( composite number m is greater than 1 and there is a natural number greater than besides 1 and m, that divides m)
2) Writing definition using symbolic notation for prime numbers? (p is greater than 1, only natural numbers greater than 0 thatt divides p are 1 and p)

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


∃ m ∈ ℕ, m ∣ n => 1<m<n
for the composite

∀ a,b ∈ ℕ: a/b=p ∧ a=p ∧ b=1
for the prime

I'm 100% sure I'm doing something wrong.. Can anyone help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Iwantttt said:

The Attempt at a Solution


∃ m ∈ ℕ, m ∣ n => 1<m<n
for the composite

If m does not divide n, your statement always holds so every number ends up being composite. You shouldn't be using implications to do this. Try something like
∃ m ∈ ℕ, (_____ and _____)

where you fill in the blanks

∀ a,b ∈ ℕ: a/b=p ∧ a=p ∧ b=1
for the prime

Why is a/b=p here? Primes aren't defined based on what divides to get them
 
Ok. thanks for the advice. How does this look?

∃ m ∈ ℕ, m∣n ∧ 1<m<n
for the composite

∀ n ∈ ℕ: n∣p ⇔ n=1 ∧ n=p
for the prime
 
It looks good to me.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K