Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My physics teacher told me recently that -10 is less than -100.

The way I look at it is in 2 ways:

  1. Having minus £100 would mean you have less money that if you had -£10.
  2. If you are presented with a number spectrum ranging from -100 to 100, it is clear that -100 is lowest down the spectrum and therefore lower/less that -10.

So is there any valid explanation as to why is -10 less than -100?

share|improve this question
7  
Both your examples (and some of the answers below) show that -100 is less than -10. This is true, as you can easily check using the definition of less than. The terms less than and greater than are very standard; everyone should use them in the same way. I consider a statement like "-10 is smaller than -100" to be more ambiguous and informal. For example, if we set up a coordinate system and use it to describe forces of -10 and -100, then the force of -10 is the smaller force. You should use the context to determine if "smaller than" means "less than" or "smaller in magnitude." –  Jonas Kibelbek Oct 9 '12 at 16:26
    
Yes, I should really have mentioned that in this case it is smaller in magnitude, as he was talking about the current through the circuit. –  Olly Price Oct 9 '12 at 16:29
1  
My friend just said, "I think -10 is less that -100 because it's closer to 0 and 0 is as low as possible" - any counter arguments? can't think of one. –  Olly Price Oct 9 '12 at 16:33
12  
"Zero is not as low as possible" –  Dan Neely Oct 9 '12 at 19:20
3  
Send your physics teacher here. –  Preet Sangha Oct 10 '12 at 1:49

6 Answers 6

up vote 22 down vote accepted

Your teacher is wrong or you misheard him/her. $x < y$ means $x$ is to the left of $y$ on the number line, when $x$ and $y$ are real numbers. Since $-100$ is to the left of $-10$, $-100 < -10$.

If you want to talk about magnitude, then you're comparing absolute values, i.e., the distance from $0$. In that case, we're comparing $|-100| = 100$ and $|-10| = 10$. And, $10 < 100$ so $|-10| < |-100|$. But, if that is what you are talking about, you would need to mention something about magnitude or distance from $0$.

share|improve this answer
3  
He was talking about magnitude as it was when doing an experiment involving the current of an electrical circuit - therefore he is correct –  Olly Price Oct 9 '12 at 16:30
2  
@OllyPrice Yes, so he was correct and you heard him correctly but there was a slight misunderstanding as to what exactly he was referring to? –  Graphth Oct 9 '12 at 17:45
    
@Graphth I could of course be wrong, but I believe the OP is just nitpicking. He/she clearly understands magnitude and is in a class where they are taught about currents. They knew what the teacher was saying. I think. –  im so confused Oct 9 '12 at 17:55
    
ah sorry, wasn't clear –  im so confused Oct 9 '12 at 17:56
1  
It's correct to say -10 is smaller or of lesser magnitude than -100, but "less" by itself doesn't mean smaller in magnitude. What words exactly did your teacher use? –  Russell Borogove Oct 10 '12 at 0:12

It isn't, plain and simple. -100 is less than -10, i.e. -10 is larger than -100. Generally, $x$ is less than $y$ ($x < y$) if $x-y$ is negative.

Since $(-100) - (-10) = -100 + 10 = -90$ is negative, $-100$ is less than $-10$.

Your physics teacher was wrong, or he defined a non-standard less-than operation on the integers first. If you define your own meaning of less-than, you can obviously make it behave arbitrarily. Whether or not such a definition has any value is a different question, though.

share|improve this answer
    
And if you apply $x$ to -10 and $y$ to -100? –  Olly Price Oct 9 '12 at 16:13
1  
Then you're asking if $-10$ is less than $-100$. Since $(-10) - (-100) = -10 + 100 = 90$, the answer is no. Note that if you swap the values of $x$ and $y$ in $x-y$, the sign of the result changes. Thus you always have exactly one of $x < y$ or $y < x$, never neither and never both, since exactly one of the differences will have a negative sign. –  fgp Oct 9 '12 at 16:17

By definition we say that a number $x$ is less than a number $y$ if the number $y - x$ is positive. So with $x = -100$ and $y= -10$ we have that $y - x = 90 > 0$, so by definition $-100$ is less than $-10$.

I am guessing that your teacher had different definition. You might want to ask a physics.stackexchange.com about whether such a definition would exist for some physics problem.

share|improve this answer
    
It would seem that Graphth's answer is somewhat related to what my teacher was thinking about when he said it (absolute values). –  Olly Price Oct 9 '12 at 16:12
1  
@OllyPrice: That might be what your teacher was talking about. So, yes I guess that you could define $x < y$ if and only if $\lvert x\lvert < \lvert y \lvert$. But then again, on the real line you would have $-10 = 10$.... which would be (IMO) a bit of a mathematical headache. –  Thomas Oct 9 '12 at 16:15

I think your physics teacher is mistaken. -100 is unquestionably less than -10, because $-100 < -10$. If you owe \$100 you have less money than someone who owes only \$10.

However, -100 is bigger than -10, because if you owe \$100 you owe a bigger amount than someone who owes only \$10.

Addendum: Some commenters have claimed that "-100 is unquestionably less than -10, because $-100 < -10$" is tautological. It is not. The first clause concerns the meaning of the English-language phrase "less than", which is what the original question was asking about. The second clause concerns the formal mathematical statement that $-100 < -10$. I am asserting that the phrase "less than" is normally understood to mean the mathematical relation denoted by "$<$". The conventional reading of "$<$" as "less than" or "is less than" supports this claim. In contrast, in the following paragraph I am claiming that the meaning of the English-language phrase "is bigger than" (and implicitly, "is smaller than") is not modeled by the mathematical $<$ relation. (More precisely, it is modeled by $<$ only for non-negative quantities.)

These claims might be false, or poorly supported by evidence, but they are not tautological. I hope this clears things up.

share|improve this answer
8  
Huh? I've never in my life seen this usage of bigger before. Does bigger mean "larger as an absolute value" for you? Where is that definition taught? –  fgp Oct 9 '12 at 16:19
5  
"-100 is unquestionably less than -10, because $-100 < -10$" This is a tautology.. –  Mikko Korhonen Oct 9 '12 at 16:24
1  
Similarly: "one plus one is two, because $1 + 1 = 2$" –  Mikko Korhonen Oct 9 '12 at 16:29
2  
“-100 is … less than -10, because $-100 < -10$” – what is this sentence supposed to mean? This is just “x because x”. –  Konrad Rudolph Oct 9 '12 at 16:46
2  
Bigger is a vague term to which you can give a local definition in your discussion, lecture, paper or book. -100 is certainly more "magnitudinous" than -10, and so if you define "bigger" as "more magnitudinous" then it is bigger. –  Kaz Oct 10 '12 at 4:55

There is an easier way to see this (not using inequality). We say that $x$ is less than $y$ if there is a positive number $z$ such that $y=x+z$ (in fact this is the definition of $x < y$ for real numbers).

In this case you can say $-100$ is less than $-10$ because there is a positive number $z$ such that $-10=-100+z$, of course $z = 90$.

share|improve this answer

As far as physics is concerned, it is a matter of context. Sometimes, negative numbers are just part of a scale, as I am sure that your teacher would agree that -100°C is less than -10°C and sometimes, negative numbers are a way of indicating directions, a negative current is actually just a positive current in another direction. The problem disappears if you leave the 1-dimensional world and note that the first kind of quantities are scalar and the second kind of quantities are vectors. One can employ a more precise language than your teacher, but there is no ambiguity in context. It is not useful to insist on unnecessarily formal terminology.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.