MHB Upper Bound of Sets and Sequences: Analyzing Logic

CGandC
Messages
326
Reaction score
34
Upper bound definition for sets: $ M \in \mathbb{R} $ is an upper bound of set $ A $ if $ \forall \alpha\in A. \alpha \leq M$
Upper bound definition for sequences: $ M \in \mathbb{R} $ is an upper bound of sequence $ (a_n)$ if $ \forall n \in \mathbb{N}. a_n \leq M$
Suppose we look at the set $ A = \{ a_n | n \in \mathbb{N} \} $ .

I've been pondering for a while about the following 2 questions related to mathematical-writing , logic and set builder notation:

Questions:
1. How do we get using logic from the defintion of upper bound for sets to the definition of the upper bound for sequences using the set $ A = \{ a_n | n \in \mathbb{N} \} $? My reasoning:
$ \forall \alpha \in A . \alpha \leq M \iff \forall \alpha.( \alpha\in A \rightarrow \alpha \leq M ) \iff $ $\forall \alpha.( \alpha \in A \rightarrow \exists n \in \mathbb{N}. \alpha = a_n \rightarrow \alpha \leq M ) \iff $ $ \forall \alpha.( \alpha \in A \rightarrow \exists n \in \mathbb{N}. \alpha = a_n \rightarrow \alpha \leq M \rightarrow a_n \leq M) $ Hence $ \forall \alpha \in A \exists n \in \mathbb{N}.( \alpha=a_n \land a_n\leq M $ ), now, this is not equivalent to the defintion of upper bound of sequences above ( $ \forall n \in \mathbb{N}. a_n \leq M$ ), why? can you please give correct transitions? I think I made mistakes but It's confusing me to see how to write them correctly.

2. Someone told me that since every element of $ A = \{ a_n | n \in \mathbb{N} \} $ is generated by every element of $ n \in \mathbb{N} $ so therefore $ \forall \alpha\in A. \alpha \leq M$ is equivalent to $ \forall n \in \mathbb{N}. a_n \leq M$ .
How is that possible that the two statements are equivalent? Since for arbitrary $ \alpha \in C $ there exists a specific $ n \in N $ ( not arbitrary ) therefore it appears false to write $ \forall n \in \mathbb{N}. a_n \leq M$ but seems more reasonable to write $ \exists n \in \mathbb{N}. a_n \leq M$ .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The complete and correct formalization of the above statatments are the following :

1)$M\in R$ is an upper bound of $A\subseteq R$ iff (and not if) $\forall a(a\in A\Rightarrow a\leq M)$

2)$M\in R$ is an upper bound of the sequence $(a_n)$ iff $\forall n ( a_n\leq M)$

OR

1)A, $A\subseteq R$ is bounded from above iff ) $\forall a((a\in A\Rightarrow\exists M(M\in R\wedge( a\leq M))$

2) $(a_n)\subseteq R$ is bounded from above iff $\forall n\exists M (M\in R\wedge (a_n\leq M)$

So depending on the words of the definition there different ways to formalise the definition

Also you do not use logic for formalizing a mathematical statement

To prove that two statement are equivalent you have to use logic

Now according to the words expressing that A has an upper bound M you can use the appropriate formalization
 
Thanks, I understand now.
 
I must also point out that only complet and correct formalization will allow you to write a correct formal proof
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top