Homework 4 Solutions for Math 3345
Uploaded by
teacheryinyineduHomework 4 Solutions for Math 3345
Uploaded by
teacheryinyineduCommon questions
Powered by AIThe completed square method simplifies quadratic equations like x^2 −4x + 4 into forms such as (x−2)^2, clearly illustrating whether unique solutions exist. In x^2 −4x + 4 = 0, completing the square yields (x−2)^2 = 0, showing a unique solution x = 2, verifying (∃!x ∈R)(x^2 −4x + 4 = 0) is true. Conversely, x^2 −4x + 5 becomes (x−2)^2 + 1, rendering (x−2)^2 ≥ 0, hence lacking any solution for zero, indicating the falsity of similar unique existence claims due to absence of equalization .
To prove the falsity of the statement (∀x ∈R)(∃!y ∈R)(xy = 1), the counterexample uses x = 0. For x = 0, no real number y can satisfy the equation xy = 1 as the product 0 * y will always be 0, which is not equal to 1. This simple choice of x = 0 effectively demonstrates that not all x in R can satisfy the condition for a unique y, conclusively showing the statement is false .
The logical structure demonstrating that the set of all real numbers is not bounded above involves a negation of boundedness conditions. The set S is not bounded above if and only if (∃b ∈R)(∀x ∈S)(x < b) is false. This means for every real number b, the statement (∀x ∈S)(x < b) must be false. By choosing b + 1, a number greater than any proposed bound b, one can show that b + 1 is not less than b, thereby proving that there is no real number that can bound S from above .
The understanding of continuity at a point in real analysis is intricately related to logical negations via quantifiers. A function f is continuous at a point a if (∀ϵ ∈ R+)(∃δ ∈ R+)(∀x ∈ R)(|x - a| < δ ⇒ |f(x) - f(a)| < ϵ). The negation, representing discontinuity, is expressed as (∃ϵ ∈ R+)(∀δ ∈ R+)(∃x ∈ R)(|x - a| < δ ∧ |f(x) - f(a)| ≥ ϵ). This inverse quantification directly interprets discreteness through logical statements, converting analytical conditions into an argument about the existence and universality of such conditions being false .
The sentence (∀x ∈R)(∃!y ∈R)(x + y = 0) is true because for every real number x, there exists a unique y, specifically y = -x, such that their sum equals zero. The reasoning is straightforward: given any real number x, the inverse additive property ensures that adding -x to x results in zero only, and y = -x is the unique solution for each x. This cross-verification ensures the truth of the statement universally across real numbers .
In logical sentences involving quantifiers, free and bound variables are identified by the presence or absence of quantifiers (∀ and ∃). In a predicate like P(x, y), both x and y are free variables. When quantifiers are applied, such as in (∀y)P(x, y), only x remains free since y is quantified over, making it bound. In expressions like (∃x)(∀y)P(x, y), neither x nor y are free because both have been quantified. Similarly, in (∃x)P(x, y), variable y becomes free as x is the subject of the existential quantifier. Therefore, the context of quantifiers determines the freedom or boundedness of variables .
The statement (∀x ∈R)[if x ≠ 0, then (∃!y ∈R)(xy = 1)] is true because for every non-zero x, the multiplicative inverse exists and is unique, specifically y = 1/x. Given x is not zero, y = 1/x fulfills xy = 1 uniquely since no other value of y would satisfy this equation when x is defined. Therefore, the condition of the statement is satisfied universally among all non-zero real numbers, supporting its truth .
The sentence (∃!x ∈Z)(x^2 −4x +3 < 0) is proven true by identifying integer solutions within the inequality 1 < x < 3. The integer 2 is the sole number that fits within this range and satisfies the inequality by substitution, resulting in 2^2 −4*2 +3 = -1 < 0. This uniqueness arises because no other integer, to the exclusion of 2, can lie within the strict bounds required by the inequality, making it an integer-specific solution .
The finite structure of a set implies the existence of a bound as every finite set contains a maximal element. In the case where S is the set of all numbers representing the possible hair counts on humans, its finitude guarantees at least one maximal element n. Since for all x in S, x ≤ n by maximality, the proof that (∃b ∈ R)(∀x ∈ S)(x < b) is true is trivial where n serves as such a b, hence S is bounded above .
The statement (∃y ∈ R)(∀x ∈ R)(xy = 1) is considered false because there cannot exist a real number y that satisfies the condition for every real number x. The proof involves assuming any real number y and showing there exists at least one real number x, such as x0 = 0, such that x0y = 0. Since 0 is not equal to 1, this provides a counterexample that disproves (∀x ∈ R)(xy = 1), validating the claim that (∃y ∈ R)(∀x ∈ R)(xy = 1) is false .