Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**zetafunc.****Guest**

I'm having a little trouble understanding how to interpret some logic statements.

I'm aware that

reads as "For all x, there is at least one y such that P(x,y) is true."Is it correct to say that

reads as "There is at least one x such that P(x,y) is true for all y"?Furthermore, how do I interpret these statements?

Can we simply interpret them as "there exists an x AND there exists a y" and similarly for the subsequent statement? Or is this wrong?

**Au101****Member**- Registered: 2010-12-01
- Posts: 353

It's been a while and you should wait for someone to confirm, but as far as I know yes, everything you've written is fine

Offline

zetafunc. wrote:

I'm aware that

reads as "For all x, there is at least one y such that P(x,y) is true."Is it correct to say that

reads as "There is at least one x such that P(x,y) is true for all y"?

That is correct. As an illustration, let us apply this to the definition of continuity: let f(

where

denotes the statement .You should also be aware that

and do not commute: . In the first statement, theFor example, in the definition of continuity above, let us reverse the order of

and :This is no longer the definition of continuity, but of uniform continuity, which is a stronger condition than continuity.

zetafunc. wrote:

Furthermore, how do I interpret these statements?

Can we simply interpret them as "there exists an x AND there exists a y" and similarly for the subsequent statement? Or is this wrong?

Right again. And this time commutes with , as does with . For example, the definition of continuity above can be restated as follows:

Its the same thing.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Thanks a lot -- beautifully explained, makes perfect sense now.

Pages: **1**