Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53

Math Help - Prove or Disprove

  1. #16
    Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    75
    Prove or disprove: There does not exist a real number x such that for all real numbers y, xy=1.

    Contradiction: Suppose yes. That is, suppose that there is a real number x such that for all real numbers y, x*y=1.
    Let x be the real number 0 and let y=z for any real number z.

    Then,

    x*y= 0*z .........by substitution
    = 0 ......... by algebra

    There is a contradiction, because when x is the real number 0, x multiplied by y equals 0. Therefore, the original statement is in fact true. There does not exist a real number x such that for all real numbers y, xy=1. **end of proof**



    The only concern w/ my proof: Isn't the statement a universal statement? I thought that you are not allowed to use numbers to PROVE a universal statement using actual numbers, but this is the only proof I was able to come up with. Also, isn't this prove more of a counterexample as opposed to a contradiction?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #17
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    Also, isn't this prove more of a counterexample as opposed to a contradiction?
    In your case, one counter-example is enough to invalidate the original statement (or more exactly, validate it by invalidating its opposite). Check out my post on the previous page.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #18
    Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    75
    Isn't my above proof technically a counter example since I am using a number instead of a variable?

    Is it CORRECT to disprove a universal statement that says 'there does not exist such a number x, such that...." when there really DOES exist such a number x with the use of contradiction, where in the contradiction the number ZERO is used to help prove the point instead of a variable? (because I was told the only time you are allowed to use numbers in your example is when u disprove a universal statement using counterexample)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #19
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    You haven't proven the statement. You have just proven it for x = 0. You need to find a counter-example working with y. Again, go to the last post of the previous page.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #20
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by matthayzon89 View Post
    Prove or disprove: There does not exist a real number x such that for all real numbers y, xy=1.

    Contradiction: Suppose yes. That is, suppose that there is a real number x such that for all real numbers y, x*y=1.
    Let x be the real number 0 and let y=z for any real number z.

    Then,

    x*y= 0*z .........by substitution
    = 0 ......... by algebra

    There is a contradiction, because when x is the real number 0, x multiplied by y equals 0. Therefore, the original statement is in fact true. There does not exist a real number x such that for all real numbers y, xy=1. **end of proof**



    The only concern w/ my proof: Isn't the statement a universal statement? I thought that you are not allowed to use numbers to PROVE a universal statement using actual numbers, but this is the only proof I was able to come up with. Also, isn't this prove more of a counterexample as opposed to a contradiction?
    Well, the statement isn't saying that we must prove or disprove it for all real numbers.

    You only need one counterexample to show that xy cannot equal 1 for all real numbers.

    xy=1 for an "infinity" of real numbers!! It just isn't for zero. That, of course is the only one that shoots it down.
    Seems unjust but there you go, zero is a slippery one.

    When you say "universal statement", you need to realise the question is asking you
    if xy=1 for all real numbers y.

    The only way you can show it's not is to discover at least one counterexample,
    since clearly all non-zero reals have reciprocals.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #21
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    Well, the statement isn't saying that we must prove or disprove it for all real numbers.
    Yes it does, it wants us to prove that no real number x can satisfy the condition xy = 1 with any real y. So just saying that the number x = 0 does not satisfy the condition does not prove the statement.

    Well that's how I understand it. I think we should make it clear what the statement is before wasting lots of time and space.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #22
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    1
    y=1, x=1
    y=2, x=1/2
    y=3, x=1/3
    y=k, x=1/k

    y=0, x has no value
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #23
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacterius View Post
    Yes it does, it wants us to prove that no real number x can satisfy the condition xy = 1 with any real y. So just saying that the number x = 0 does not satisfy the condition does not prove the statement.

    Well that's how I understand it. I think we should make it clear what the statement is before wasting lots of time and space.
    You need to reread the statement,
    you're misinterpreting it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #24
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Archie Meade View Post
    You need to reread the statement,
    you're misinterpreting it.
    Yes, I've reread it and I still understand it in the same way. Prove that for any y \in \mathbb{R}, there exists no real number x such that xy = 1. How are you interpreting the statement ?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #25
    Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    75
    It is okay to set x=0, in some cases, when using contradiction, is this correct?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #26
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacterius View Post
    Yes, I've reread it and I still understand it in the same way. Prove that for any y \in \mathbb{R}, there exists no real number x such that xy = 1. How are you interpreting the statement ?
    hi Bacterius,

    I know you meant for any y, because your proof followed from that.

    However the statement is

    "There does not exist a real number x, such that for all real numbers y, xy=1".
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #27
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Archie Meade View Post
    hi Bacterius,

    I know you meant for any y, because your proof followed from that.

    However the statement is

    "There does not exist a real number x, such that for all real numbers y, xy=1".
    Yes, and that's the base of my proof isn't it ? It is the word "all" that allows for a counter-example. Or not ... To be honest I'm a bit lost in the thread, it's confusing ... Gonna take some fresh air
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #28
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    1
    We could express it numerically.

    For all real numbers y.....

    If y=1, there exists x=1 such that xy=1

    so in that case there does exist an x for that y such that xy=1

    and that is the only x that causes xy=1

    If y=2, there exists x=0.5, such that xy=1

    and that's the only x that causes xy=1

    If y=3.5, there exists x=1/3.5, such that xy=1

    Hence for almost any y, there exists an x=1/y such that xy=1

    The only value of y that violates this is y=0.

    Hence, there is one and only one y, such that an x does not exist to result in xy=1.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #29
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Archie Meade View Post
    We could express it numerically.

    For all real numbers y.....

    If y=1, there exists x=1 such that xy=1

    so in that case there does exist an x for that y such that xy=1

    and that is the only x that causes xy=1

    If y=2, there exists x=0.5, such that xy=1

    and that's the only x that causes xy=1

    If y=3.5, there exists x=1/3.5, such that xy=1

    Hence for almost any y, there exists an x=1/y such that xy=1

    The only value of y that violates this is y=0.

    Hence, there is one and only one y, such that an x does not exist to result in xy=1.

    I think you're confusing things here and this was clear from one of your prior posts to the OP, where you told him that his proof was correct if we rule out zero. Well no, his proof is incorrect even if we restrict ourselves to real non-zero numbers.

    This the original question posted: "There does not exist a real number x such that for all real numbers y, xy=1

    Change to "...for all non-zero real numbers y, xy = 1" ,and still the claim is true. In logic writing, the claim is: \sim\exists x \,\forall y\,P(x,y) , where P(x,y) is the property xy=1 .

    This is WAY different from : for any non-zero real y there exists a real x s.t. xy = 1", or in symbols \forall y\,\exists x\,P(x,y) ...

    The original claims is: there doesn't exists a fixed number x s.t. for ANY real number y (zero or not, it works both ways) we'll get xy=1 . The claim is true in both cases (zero or not)...

    Tonio
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #30
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    That's what I thought too I was starting to doubt of myself
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. How do I prove/disprove this?
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 7th 2010, 06:00 AM
  2. Prove or disprove
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 2nd 2009, 04:30 PM
  3. Set Prove or Disprove
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 1st 2009, 03:08 AM
  4. Help me to prove or disprove this:
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 17th 2008, 06:41 PM
  5. prove or disprove
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 10th 2007, 05:44 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum