MHB Self-Consistency of Sequence of Statements: Which is True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheBigBadBen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence
TheBigBadBen
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Consider the following sequence of statements:
$$
S_1: \text{at least 1 of the statements }S_1-S_n \text{ is false}\\
S_2: \text{at least 2 of the statements }S_1-S_n \text{ are false}\\
\vdots \\
S_n: \text{at least } n \text{ of the statements }S_1-S_n \text{ are false}
$$
Where $n$ is some integer.

Question: for which $n$ are these statements self-consistent? In those cases: what is the truth value of each statement?

I got this off of a blog I tend to frequent. I will wait before posting the solution this time.

EDIT:
Changed the question; I had written the statements wrong
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Suppose $k$ out of $n$ statements are true.
Then $S_1$ up to $S_k$ have to be true and the rest has to be false.
This appears to be consistent for any $n$ and any $0\le k \le n$.
 
I like Serena said:
Suppose $k$ out of $n$ statements are true.
Then $S_1$ up to $S_k$ have to be true and the rest has to be false.
This appears to be consistent for any $n$ and any $0\le k \le n$.

Sorry about that, you were absolutely right about the question as phrased.

However, this new version should prove to be a bit more interesting. This is what I had meant; I had accidentally written "true" instead of "false".
 
If $S_n$ is true, then $n$ statements are false, including $S_n$.
Therefore $S_n$ is false.

We now know that at least $1$ statement is false.
Therefore $S_1$ is true.
For $n=1$ this is a contradiction, and for $n=2$ this is a consistent solution.

For $n \ge 3$ we can say, that if $S_{n-1}$ were true, then $n-1$ statements are false.
Since $S_1$ is true, this implies that $S_{n-1}$ is false.
Therefore $S_{n-1}$ is false.

So at least $2$ statements are false.
Therefore $S_2$ is true.
For $n=3$ this is a contradiction, and for $n=4$ this is a consistent solution.

Etcetera.In other words, we get a consistent consistent solution if and only if $n$ is even.
In that case $S_1$ up to $S_{n/2}$ are true and $S_{n/2+1}$ up to $S_{n}$ are false. $\qquad \blacksquare$
 
I like Serena said:
If $S_n$ is true, then $n$ statements are false, including $S_n$.
Therefore $S_n$ is false.

We now know that at least $1$ statement is false.
Therefore $S_1$ is true.
For $n=1$ this is a contradiction, and for $n=2$ this is a consistent solution.

For $n \ge 3$ we can say, that if $S_{n-1}$ were true, then $n-1$ statements are false.
Since $S_1$ is true, this implies that $S_{n-1}$ is false.
Therefore $S_{n-1}$ is false.

So at least $2$ statements are false.
Therefore $S_2$ is true.
For $n=3$ this is a contradiction, and for $n=4$ this is a consistent solution.

Etcetera.In other words, we get a consistent consistent solution if and only if $n$ is even.
In that case $S_1$ up to $S_{n/2}$ are true and $S_{n/2+1}$ up to $S_{n}$ are false. $\qquad \blacksquare$

Couldn't have phrased it better myself.

The source, for anybody interested:
The Parity Paradox – Futility Closet

I highly recommend the website as a time-wasting tool.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top