Proving a mathematical statement

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

The discussion centers on the mathematical statement regarding the existence of a positive integer m such that for all positive integers n, n+m is divisible by 3. The conclusion is that this statement is false because m must be a fixed constant, not a variable dependent on n. The participants clarify that in the original statement, m cannot vary with n, contrasting it with a similar statement where m can be defined as a function of n. This distinction is crucial in understanding the validity of the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of positive integers
  • Basic knowledge of divisibility rules
  • Familiarity with mathematical proofs
  • Concept of fixed versus variable parameters in mathematical statements
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of divisibility in number theory
  • Learn about fixed and variable parameters in mathematical logic
  • Explore examples of mathematical proofs involving integers
  • Investigate similar mathematical statements and their proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying number theory and mathematical proofs, as well as educators looking to explain the nuances of mathematical statements and their implications.

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
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K