MHB Proving/Disproving "Every Pot Has a Lid

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yankel
  • Start date Start date
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I have a phrase in English, and I need to determine if it is true or false. If it is true, I need to prove it, and if it is false, I need to disprove it.

The phrase is based on the famous phrase "every pot has a lid", and it goes like this:

"If there exist an infinite set of lids, then, all pots has a lid (every pot has a lid)".

As you can see, I have the "if-then" connector here (\implies), along with the two quantifiers (all and exist). I am not sure how to prove or disprove it.

On one hand, it sounds invalid, since having an infinite number of lids doesn't mean that there is no pot without a lid. On the other hand, the number of pots and number of lids are both natural numbers, and so the cardinality of both is equal, I think.

I was trying to write this down using predicates (using \forall \exists \implies \therefore), but couldn't do it.

Can you please assist in solving this problem ?

Thank you in advance !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yankel said:
"If there exist an infinite set of lids, then, all pots has a lid (every pot has a lid)".
If I were you, my first reaction would be to refuse to solve this problem. Making mathematical questions in such a way that they essentially involve knowledge about our world of physics, biology and human relationships is a poor way of constructing problems. Yes, problems for younger students often involve names and real situations, e.g., "A teacher announced that she is forming a student theater. Only senior students are eligible, and there has to be at least 14 members...". But such descriptions are readily translated into a purely mathematical model about sets, numbers, functions and so on. If one needs to know what the relationship between a pot and a lid is and how many pots are there in the world (countable and uncountable numbers are both impossible in our physical world), this is not good.

So I would ask you teacher to state the problem using regular mathematical vocabulary. If you have any guesses about the meaning of this phrase, feel free to say.
 
Thank you, I like your answer. I thought it was only me who thought this problem wasn't phrased properly.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
If I were you, my first reaction would be to refuse to solve this problem. Making mathematical questions in such a way that they essentially involve knowledge about our world of physics, biology and human relationships is a poor way of constructing problems. Yes, problems for younger students often involve names and real situations, e.g., "A teacher announced that she is forming a student theater. Only senior students are eligible, and there has to be at least 14 members...". But such descriptions are readily translated into a purely mathematical model about sets, numbers, functions and so on. If one needs to know what the relationship between a pot and a lid is and how many pots are there in the world (countable and uncountable numbers are both impossible in our physical world), this is not good.

So I would ask you teacher to state the problem using regular mathematical vocabulary. If you have any guesses about the meaning of this phrase, feel free to say.

Unfortunately some teachers/lecturers seem to love this sort of ambiguity. I would not be surprised if OP mentioned this to his prof. and got a response of "Oh yeah yeah of course, just assume bla bla and so and so"...
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top