Proving a mathematical statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Temp0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematical
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving a mathematical statement regarding the divisibility of the sum of a positive integer n and another positive integer m by 3. The original poster reflects on a similar problem with a different structure and seeks clarification on the implications of the order of quantifiers in the statement.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why the reversal of conditions affects the truth of the statement. They reference a previous successful proof and question the applicability of the same approach to the current problem.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the implications of the order of quantifiers in the mathematical statement. Some guidance has been provided regarding the distinction between a fixed value of m and a variable dependent on n. The discussion is productive, with participants clarifying their understanding of the concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the fixed nature of m in the current problem versus its potential variability in the previous problem. This distinction is central to the discussion.

Temp0
Messages
79
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


There exists a number m, which is an element of the positive integers, that for all positive integers n, n+m can be divided by 3. Prove whether this statement is true or false.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I ran into a similar question earlier on, which just had the initial part reversed (as in, for all positive integers n there is a positive integer m so that n+m is divisible by 3). I proved that statement by letting m = 2n, and then 3n / 3 = n, which is a positive integer, proving that n+m is divisible. However, I don't understand why reversing the initial condition suddenly makes the entire statement false. Can I not do the same m = 2n idea to prove this statement? Could anyone explain why this is? Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
m cannot depend on n here.
If such an m would exist, you would have to be able to say "m=1245" for example.
 
Ohh, so you're saying that m would be like a constant value, whereas in the other case it could be a variable? How exactly does the order play into this?
 
The order is in the statement.

"There is a number m [such] that for all integers n, ..." => fixed m, and then for all integers n something has to be true.
"For every n there is an integer m" => m can depend on n.
 
Ohh, I see, thank you so much for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K