# Tag Info

2

This skill comes with lots of practice. Generally speaking, direct proofs are used when the result is "positive-sounding". In your example, the result is, "the product of two odd integers is odd". This result is positive-sounding (as opposed to a result like, "there is no smallest positive real number"). For the result, "if $x^2$ is even, then $x$ is ...

2

There are many ways to write down a proof. The question is, apart from correctness, which one is more elegant, more concise, more constructive, and last not least easier und thus clearer. In your case, for me the easiast way is to do first an obvious computation, i.e. $$(2k+1)(2l+1)=4kl+2k+2l+1.$$ Your first step here is wrong, because you assume that both ...

0

The answer to your question depends on what exactly you mean by "question", "decidability" and "only a single valid answer". A question in the sense of computability theory is usually identified with the set of its yes-instances. E.g. the question "which natural numbers have the property P?" is identified with the set of natural numbers having the property ...

0

As pointed out in the comments, it is definitely a theorem. Here is the shortest proof I could think of. If the parallelogram is a rectangle, then the equality holds. Therefore we can assume the parallelogram has an acute angle. Label the parallelogram as in the figure, where the lines of length $h$ are perpendicular to the top and bottom. Also, notice that ...

4

There are many undecidable statements about the integers, but most people (including me) believe that the integers truly exist. So any statement about the integers is either true or false, even if it is undecidable.

1

Using the tips by Christian Remling, I have been able to formulate the following explicit proof, which is quite long due to the removal of the use of the deduction theorem ($\land$ has higher precedence than $\to$): 1 $\vdash \forall x(A \to B) \to (A \to B)$ (aax) 2 $\vdash (\forall x(A \to B) \to (A \to B)) \to (\forall x(A \to B) \land A \to B))$ ...

1

As you already observed, $$\vdash \forall x(A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow (A\rightarrow \forall x B)$$ if $x$ is the only free variable in $A, B$, by the deduction theorem. In the general case, you can enlarge your language by new constants and replace the additional free variables (if any) by those constants to prove $$\vdash \forall x(A(c_j)\rightarrow ... 0 I can't understand what you wrote, but the proof can be easy and pretty short: Let \;x\in\Bbb R\; be an indeterminate, and look at the equation:$$0\le(xu+v)\cdot(xu+v)=x^2||u|^2+2x\,u\cdot v+||v||^2$$The above is a non-negative quadratic in \;x\; and thus its discriminant is non-positive:$$\Delta=4u\cdot v-4||u||^2||v||^2\le 0$$and this proves ... 1 0 <= ||u||^2 ||v||^2 - |u . v|^2 if and only if 0 <= (u_1^2 + u_2^2)(v_1^2+v_2^2) - (u_1v_1+u_2v_2)^2 if and only if 0 <= u_1^2v_2^2 + u_2^2v_1^2-2u_1v_1u_2v_2=(u_1v_2 - u_2v_1)^2 which is true. So Cauchy-Schwartz inequality holds. 1 So we're starting with this:$$\frac{2^n - 1}{2^n} + \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}.$$Note that the denominators are not the same. They need to be the same in order to combine them to get to the next step. To do this we multiply the numerator and denominator of the first term by 2. This makes the denominators the same, because 2^n \cdot 2 = 2^{n+1}:$$\frac{2 ...

1

$$\frac{2^{n}-1}{2^{n}} + \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}$$ $$= \frac{2(2^{n}-1)}{2^{n+1}} + \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}$$ $$= \frac{2^{n+1}-2}{2^{n+1}} + \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}$$ $$= \frac{2^{n+1}-1}{2^{n+1}}$$

0

The essential point here is that recursive definitions can be formalized in PA as explicit definitions. Specifically, if we have a recursion of the form $f(0)=a$ and $f(n+1)=g(f(n))$, and if we already know how to formalize $g$ in PA, then we can formalize $f$ by defining $f(n)=z$ to mean "there is an $s$ that codes (via your favorite sequence coding) a ...

0


0

For standard PC, Intuitionist logic, and a number of other logics: IF the theorem being proven contains no double negations, THEN there is a proof for it that has no double negation. This was proven by Michael Beeson, Robert Veroff, and Larry Wos in the paper "Double-Negation Elimination in Some Propositional Logics" ...

Top 50 recent answers are included