state the property which is a reason for each statement.
a. if a<0 and b> 0, then a<b.
b. if x>7, then x is not equal to 7.
c. if 5>9 and 2<3, then 7<12.
d. if m = 10 and n= 6, then m+n = 6
e. if squareroot of a = 5 is true, then square root of a + 4 is false
c.subtraction property of equality
d.addition property of equality
iF any could know the exact answer please check my work? thanks....
December 6th 2010, 06:07 PM
Are you sure you typed c and d and e correctly? Double-check those problem statements, if you would, please. Definitely agree with a and b's answers.
December 7th 2010, 05:47 PM
thank you sir for your time looking and checking my work. sir that is exactly the problem ,taken from the book of geometry ( Edwin E. Moise, Floyd L. Downs Jr.-Addison Wesley) page 27 problem set number 2. thank you sir for your effort..God bless
December 7th 2010, 06:32 PM
You need to correct c d and e as noted by Ackbeet. You are making typing errors
December 7th 2010, 06:56 PM
Reply to jpmath2010:
Well, assuming you're typing the problem statements correctly, here's what I would say:
c. This statement is what we call in logic "vacuously true". The if part is false (it is not true that 5>9), and hence you're allowed to conclude anything whatsoever. Now, if the problem statement is supposed to be this:
If 5<9 and 2<3, then 7<12 (the difference is the first inequality),
then I would say the additive property of inequalities is what works for you there.
d. This is quite simply not true in normal arithmetic. Now, if you're doing modular arithmetic, you might be able to say that. (modulo 10, for example, although then you wouldn't have m = 10, but m = 0). In normal arithmetic, if m = 10 and n =6, then m + n = 16, not 6.
e. This is a nonsensical statement. It simply doesn't parse mathematically. I suppose you could take the square root of an equation (a = 5), but then why would you compare that in a truth-functional sense with the square of something that's not an equation (a+4)? Did you mean this: