MHB Verify Algebraic Statement for Philosophy of Time Essay

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around verifying an algebraic statement for an essay on revising the A-series of time in light of relativity. The author seeks confirmation of the truth of the statement involving the sum of integers and their relationship to a variable y. A counterexample is provided, demonstrating that the assumptions about the integers can affect the validity of the conclusion. Strengthening the assumptions to strictly positive integers could lead to the desired conclusion. The author expresses gratitude for the assistance, indicating that this verification was crucial for completing the essay.
musickps
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am not sure if this is the right thread, since I am new. Bump it if necessary.

I am currently writing an essay on revising the conventional A-series of time to account for relativity and simultaneity, among other problems. In the course of my argument, I have used an algebraic statement. I know that the organization is not up to convention, but this is a rough draft. I am just trying to verify that this is a true statement. I seem to remember some transitive property from my high school days that suggests that it is, but I want to make sure before my supervisor sees it! Thanks for the help!

Assuming
(1) all given variables represent non-zero integers and
(2) no integer in the addition operation appears more than once

-Let s represent the sum of following integers: m, n, x, p

If (s)(z) = y

then the following expressions must all be true:

(m)(z) ≠ y,
(n)(z) ≠y
(x)(z) ≠y.
(p)(z) ≠ y.



Mods: I was not sure where to post this since it is algebraic in nature but I am using it in a theoretical manuscript. Feel free to bump it wherever it belongs. Thanks for the help!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Counterexample: $m=1, n=3, x=-2, p=-1$. Then $s=m+n+x+p=1$. We assume $sz=y$. But it is also true that $mz=y$. If you strengthen the first assumption to $m,n,x,p$ must all be strictly positive integers, then I think you could conclude what you want.
 
Thank you so much! Thanks to you, I have that essay under my belt; that was the last thing left to verify.

You have made Philosopher of Time very happy indeed. :D
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

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