Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Identify if the statement is true or false. If false, give a counterexample.

$\forall m \exists n$, $mn = n$, where $m$ and $n$ are integers.

I said that this statement was false; specifically, that it is false when $m$ is any integer other than $1$

Apparently this is incorrect; honestly though, I can't see how it is.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

As others have noted, the statement is true:

$$\forall m \exists n, \; mn = n, \;\;\; m,\,n \in \mathbb Z \tag {1}$$

For all $m$, there exists an $n$ such that $mn = n$. To show this is true we need only to find the existence of such an $n$: and $n = 0:\;\; m\cdot 0 = 0 \forall m$.

Since there exists an $n$ ($n = 0$) such that for every $m$, $mn = n$, this is one case where one can switch the order of the quantifiers and preserve truth:

$$\exists n \forall m,\; mn = n,\;\;\;m, n\in \mathbb Z \tag{2}$$

And further more, this $n = 0$ is the unique $n$ satisfying $(1), (2)$. It is precisely the defining property of zero under multiplication, satisfied by and only by $0$.

The existence of a unique "something" is denoted: $\exists !$, giving us, the strongest (true) statement yet:

$$\exists! n\forall m,\;\; mn = n,\;\;\;m, n\in \mathbb Z\tag{3}$$

share|cite|improve this answer
I Like the bit about changing the order of the quantifiers--I never thought of doing that. – Mack Mar 14 '13 at 12:58

For any $m$, take $n=0{}{}{}{}{}$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Note that $mn=n$ if and only if $mn-n=0$ if and only if $(m-1)n=0$. Using the zero product property, we see that there is exactly one $n$ such that this holds for all integers $m$, and that $n$ happens to be an integer.

share|cite|improve this answer

Hint: Consider $n=0$.${}{}{}{}$

share|cite|improve this answer
Oh, yes. $0$ is in fact an integer! – Mack Mar 13 '13 at 19:18
yes in this case this fact is very important – dato datuashvili Mar 13 '13 at 19:24

so this stattment says,that for all m ,there exist such n so that m*n=n,if n is equal to zero,then it would be identity,so true,if we say that there exist n except n=0,then maybe it would not be correct if n is prime,so answer for this case because it is not constraint n not to be zero,then it is true

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.