1 Attachment(s)

Negating Complex Definitions

I understand how to negate simple statements, but how does one go about negating complex definitions such as:

Attachment 29765

I want to negate the quantifiers and then simply change the <'s to >'s, but it doesn't seem like this makes sense:

There exists an epsilon, for all delta, there exists an x, there exists a y...

How does one figure out what to negate/change?

Thanks for your help.

Re: Negating Complex Definitions

Hey divinelogos.

If you negate a "for-all" you get a "there exists a counter-example" and if you negate a "there exists" then you get "for all counter-examples". It's basically reversing the quantifiers but you also have to invert what the variable refers to.

Re: Negating Complex Definitions

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**divinelogos** I understand how to negate simple statements, but how does one go about negating complex definitions such as:

Attachment 29765
I want to negate the quantifiers and then simply change the <'s to >'s, but it doesn't seem like this makes sense:

There exists an epsilon, for all delta, there exists an x, there exists a y...

CORRECT
How does one figure out what to negate/change?

But note that and ,

So we get

Re: Negating Complex Definitions

Quote:

Hey divinelogos.

If you negate a "for-all" you get a "there exists a counter-example" and if you negate a "there exists" then you get "for all counter-examples". It's basically reversing the quantifiers but you also have to invert what the variable refers to.

Ok, I get changing "For all epsilon" to "There exists an epsilon", but what does "invert what the variable refers to" mean?

Re: Negating Complex Definitions