MHB Show that a quantified statement is true:

  • Thread starter Thread starter zethieo
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the quantified statement involving the inequality 2n + 100 ≤ λn for sufficiently large n. It highlights the concept of big-O notation, indicating that while 2n + 100 is greater than n for all n > 0, there exists a constant λ (like 3) that satisfies the inequality eventually. The key point is finding a positive integer m such that the inequality holds for all n ≥ m. The conclusion reached is that m can be determined as 100, thus validating the statement. Overall, the discussion clarifies the relationship between the expressions and the conditions under which the inequality holds.
zethieo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
for example this question:
∃λ∈R+, ∃m∈Z+,∀n∈m..+∞,2n+100≤λn

To be honest I'm really struggling to understand this math, and I'm actually not even totally sure what this question is called. If anyone could explain this to me or point me to some good tutorials I'd really appreciate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This seems like the statement saying that $2n+100$ is $O(n)$. If you don't know what the big-O notation is, please ignore this.

The statement says that even though $2n+100>n$ for all $n>0$, we can find a positive constant $\lambda$ such that $2n+100\le\lambda n$. For example, $\lambda=3$ looks promising. The second subtlety is that $2n+100\le3n$ does not hold for all $n>0$, but only eventually, i.e., from some point $m$ on. Can you find such $m$ if $\lambda=3$?
 
So that would mean m = 100, which proves the statement to be true.

This doesn't seem that bad, thanks for the help.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K