Results 1 to 12 of 12

Math Help - Negation

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    62

    Negation

    Hi,

    if  y \in f( \mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B}) \Leftrightarrow \exists x \in  \mathbf{A} \text{ or } \exists x \in \mathbf{B} \text{ such as }y=f(x)

     \neg(y \in f( \mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B}))= y \not \in  f( \mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B}))\Leftrightarrow \forall x \not \in  \mathbf{A} \text{ and } \forall x \not \in \mathbf{B} \text{ we have }y=f(x)

    it seems right to me but the last part seems weird "we have"...

    thanks in advance!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by sunmalus View Post
    \forall x \not \in  \mathbf{A} \text{ and } \forall x \not \in \mathbf{B} \text{ we have }y=f(x)
    That's not right. It should be:

    \forall x \in  \mathbf{A} \text{ and } \forall x \in \mathbf{B} \text{ it is not the case that }y=f(x)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    62
    it's what I got at first but then I thought about it and the fact that
    \neg(y\in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B}))=y \not \in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})
    made me think that is was wrong... So last question is that negation right or is it \neg(y\in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})=y \not \in f(\mathbf{A} \cap \mathbf{B})??

    logically I'd say
    \neg(y\in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B}))=y \not \in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})
    but once again it seems weird...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by sunmalus View Post
    \neg(y\in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B}))=y \not \in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})
    No, it should be:

    \neg(y\in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})) \Leftrightarrow y \not \in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})

    In this kind of context, an equal sign doesn't go between two statements. Rather, to express that two statements are equivalent, use the biconditional sign.

    Or (and this is a picky technical point having not much substantive to do with the subject of images that these formulas are about), you could say:

    "  y \not \in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})" stands for " \neg y\in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})".

    Anyway, all you need is:

    \neg y\in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B}) \Leftrightarrow y \not \in f(\mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})
    Last edited by MoeBlee; October 20th 2010 at 08:42 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Darn, I needed to edit my previous post because I messed up MATH tags. Please read post again now edited.

    Anyway, without messing with tags, in plain ASCII:

    ~ y in f[A u B] <-> y not in f[A u B]
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    62
    Last questions:
     \forall x \in \mathbf{A} \cap \forall x \in \mathbf{B}

    is not the same as:

     \forall x \in \mathbf{A} \cap \mathbf{B}

    right?

    If not what is another way to represent
     \forall x \in \mathbf{A} \cap \forall x \in \mathbf{B}

    (I think this was my real problem the whole time)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by sunmalus View Post
     \forall x \in \mathbf{A} \cap \forall x \in \mathbf{B}
    That makes no sense. It is not well formed, not syntactically correct.

    Probably what you mean is this:

    \forallx((x \inA & x \inB) -> x \inA \capB)

    Or even just leave off the initial universal quantifier and let it be understood as tacit:

    (x \inA & x \inB) -> x \inA \capB

    I think you need to review basic symbolic logic to see how formulas are formed. I would suggest 'Logic: Techniques Of Formal Reasoning' by Kalish, Montague, and Mar.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    62
    \neg y \in f( \mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B})\underbrace{=}_{\text{this should be} \Leftrightarrow} y \not \in f( \mathbf{A} \cup \mathbf{B}))\Leftrightarrow \underbrace{\forall x \in \mathbf{A} \text{ and } \forall x \in \mathbf{B}}_{\not \Leftrightarrow \forall x \in \mathbf{A} \cap \mathbf{B}} \text{ is not the case that }y = f(x)

    this is what I meant but I thought it was clear because of all the previous posts, sorry.
    Last edited by sunmalus; October 20th 2010 at 12:19 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,537
    Thanks
    778
    It should be pointed out that \forall x \in \mathbf{A} \text{ and } \forall x \in \mathbf{B} \text{ it is not the case that }y=f(x) is not a well-formed proposition (formula). The inductive definition of formulas goes like this. "... If P and Q are formulas, then P\land Q is a formula... If P(x) is a formula that may contain a free variable x, then \forall x.\,P(x) is a formula." So something that starts with \forall x\in A\land{} is not a well-formed formula. (The culprit, of course, is not \in A.)

    If you write the statement as

    (\forall x\in A.\,y\ne f(x))\land(\forall x\in B.\,y\ne f(x))

    reasoning about it would be easier.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    No, you repeated a previous error.

    (I'm tired of messing with LaTex tags, so I'm going to give you what you want in plain ASCII

    ~ stands for negation
    e stands for membership
    <-> will stands for material equivalence
    u stands for binary union
    U stands the universal quantification
    v stands for disjunction
    -> stands for material implication
    not= stands for inequality)

    ~ y e f[AuB] <-> y not in f[AuB] <-> Ux((x e A v x e B) -> ~ y=f(x)) <-> UxeA UxeB y not= f(x) <-> Ux(x in AuB -> ~ y=f(x))

    In other words:

    it is not the case that y is in f[AuB]

    if and only if

    y is not in f[AuB]

    if and only if

    for all x, if (x in A or x in B) then ~ y=f(x)

    if and only if

    for all x in A and all x in B, ~ y=f(x)

    if and only if

    for all x in AuB, ~ y=f(x)

    Take my suggestion to brush up on your symbolic logic?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    62
    Thank to you all but special thanks to MoeBlee! I really get it now and yes I'll take your suggestion .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    delete post
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Negation of x in A or B
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 13th 2010, 08:13 AM
  2. Negation help (2)
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 15th 2010, 07:49 AM
  3. Negation help
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 13th 2010, 09:20 AM
  4. The Negation
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 22nd 2009, 12:55 PM
  5. negation of statement.
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 31st 2008, 01:49 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum