0
$\begingroup$

$$\exists k \in \mathbb{Z}: \forall l \in \mathbb{Z}: \lnot(k \mid l) $$

I have no idea how to approach this problem? If true, prove it, and if false prove the the negation. With its negation being:

$$\forall k \in \mathbb{Z}:\exists l \in \mathbb{Z}: k \mid l$$

My intuition is telling me the negation is true, because for any k we can just choose k for l and then we get $k \mid k$, which is always true for the integers.

But then, I believe the orginal statement is also true. Because clearly, $ 0 \mid l $ only for $l = 0$. So, $$\forall l \in \mathbb{Z}: \lnot(0 \mid l)$$

Any suggestions of where I am going wrong?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You go wrong after "But then". You first say that $0 | 0$, but then say that $\forall l \in \mathbb{Z}: \lnot(0|l)$. These statements are not compatible. $\endgroup$ Nov 16 '18 at 23:28
  • $\begingroup$ Oh so your saying that since $\exists l\in \mathbb{Z}: 0 \mid l.$ We cannot conclude $\forall l \in Z: \lnot (0 \mid l)$ $\endgroup$ Nov 16 '18 at 23:31
1
$\begingroup$

According to the general definition of divisor the negation is always true assuming $l=mk$ and the original statement is not true.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ If we let the definition of "k divides l" be: $$\exists n \in \mathbb{Z} : l = k \times n$$ then the negation statement works for $0$, no? $\endgroup$ Nov 16 '18 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ @FefnirWilhelm Yes you are right, with reference to the general definition the negation is true. $\endgroup$
    – user
    Nov 17 '18 at 8:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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