Proving a sufficient condition, can someone check my work

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the relationship between divisibility by 8 and 16. Initially, it was incorrectly stated that if an integer is divisible by 8, then it must also be divisible by 16, which was proven false with a counterexample (n=8). Participants clarified that the correct sufficient condition is that if an integer is divisible by 16, then it is also divisible by 8. The proof provided for this correct statement was accepted, confirming that the initial confusion was resolved. The final conclusion emphasizes the accurate relationship between the two conditions of divisibility.
mr_coffee
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
1
ello ello!

I think i did this right but not sure! The directions are: Determine whether the statement is true or false. Prove the statement directly from the definitions or give a counter exmaple if it is false.

A sufficient condition for an integer to be divisble by 8 is hat it be divisble by 16.

\forall integers n, if n is divisble by 8, then n is divisble by 16. This is a true statement.
Proof: Suppose n is an integer divisble by 8. BY definition of divisbility, n = 8k for some integer k. But, 8k = 4*2k, and 2k is an integer because k is. Hence n = 4*(some integer) and so n is divisble by 16.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mr_coffee said:
...\forall integers n, if n is divisble by 8, then n is divisble by 16. This is a true statement.
Proof: Suppose n is an integer divisble by 8. BY definition of divisbility, n = 8k for some integer k. But, 8k = 4*2k, and 2k is an integer because k is. Hence n = 4*(some integer) and so n is divisble by 16.

Thanks!

What exactly do you mean by 'divisible'? Is it that the quotient must be an integer?
 
mr_coffee said:
Hence n = 4*(some integer) and so n is divisble by 16.

Where did this come from? You've shown n is divisible by 4, not 16.
 
16n=8(2n)
Maybe that could be used for something.
 
mr_coffee said:
\forall integers n, if n is divisble by 8, then n is divisble by 16. This is a true statement.

Take n=8. n is divisble by 8, but n is not divisible by 16.

You tried to prove:

"If n is divisible by 8 then it is divisible by 16".

but in fact you showed:

"if n is divisible by 8 then it is divisible by 4"


But they actually claimed:

"A sufficient condition for an integer to be divisble by 8 is hat it be divisble by 16."

In otherwords, "if n is divisible by 16 then it is divisible by 8."
 
Thanks guys!

OKay i rewrote it using, ""if n is divisible by 16 then it is divisible by 8.""

\forall integers n, if n is divisble by 16, then n is divisble by 8. This is a true statement.

Proof: Suppose n is an integer divisble by 16. By definition of divsibilty, n = 16k for some integer k. But, 16k = (8)(2k), and 2k is an integer because k is. Hence n = 8(some integer) and so n is divisble by 16.

I think i had it switched around as shmoe pointed out
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K