0
$\begingroup$

Let$\ P_0 $be our original proposition and$\ P_1 :a<b $ and$\ P_2:a<c $ the statements that are equivalent to$\ P_0 $. Now, if it is known that$\ b<c $, then there is an interval of values of$\ x $ such that$\ b<x<c $. Since both$\ P_1 $ and$\ P_2 $ are necessary and sufficient for the truth of$\ P_0 $, doesn't it mean that for the latter to be true it is only needed that$\ a $ assumes any value respectively$\ <b $ and$\ <c $, and we can't just say that$\ a$ must be$\ <b $? If so, recall $\ b<x<c $. If$\ a $ is in this interval, then$\ P_1 $ is false and $\ P_2 $ is true, leading to the contradictory result that $\ P_0 $ is at the same time true and false. Thus, may we conclude that$\ P_0 $ is false?

I hope I made myself clear.

EDIT: I'm putting here some more details from my answer to Nick and paw88789. what I'm saying is that, known that $\ P_2 $ is a necessary and sufficient condition for $\ P_0 $, one should be able to pick any $\ x<c $ for $\ P_0 $ to be true. But, as it turns out, it's not like that. In fact, if $\ b<a<c $ we have that $\ P_0 $ is both true and false, which is a contradiction, so they're all false. Alternatively, we may note that it must be $\ a<b $ to avoid the "contradictory interval". Thus, $\ P_2 $ loses its sufficiency, which is absurd since it was demonstrated. This is why I thought of concluding that all the propositions are false.

My latest guess is that since both $\ P_1 $ and $\ P_2 $ have been proven to be equivalent to$\ P_0 $, the truth of either of the three statements implies that of the others, and that's exactly because $\ a $ can't lie in the "contradictory interval", so showing that$\ a <c $ gives us that$\ a <b $ as well. That is, we can't deduce the falsity of the three statements.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is this original proposition $P_0$? Are you sure that it really is equivalent to both $P_1$ and $P_2$? $\endgroup$ – Adriano Sep 2 '14 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Adriano It is an exercise that I came up with after bumping into a completely similar situation, days ago. So I can't really remember what$\ P_0 $ dealt with, but it definitely wasn't something a priori related to $\ P_1 $ and $\ P_2 $, so that doesn't really matter. I remember that its equivalence to both $\ P_1 $ and $\ P_2 $ was rigorously proved. $\endgroup$ – Vincenzo Oliva Sep 2 '14 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are logically equivalent and necessary (and sufficient) conditions for $P_0$ to be true, then proving one false should be enough to prove $P_0$ false, I think. This is just my intuition - I can't prove this formally. More or less...I think I agree with you. $\endgroup$ – 123 Sep 2 '14 at 23:03
  • $\begingroup$ @mathtastic Your intuition is correct, but I'm not talking about that. I've made it clearer in the edit. $\endgroup$ – Vincenzo Oliva Sep 3 '14 at 0:42
0
$\begingroup$

You have a proposition $P_0$ and you say it is equivalent to $P_1:a<b$ and it is also equivalent to $P_2: a<c$. You say you also know $b<c$ and I assume they are all real numbers. This is not enough to conclude that these statements cannot all be true together, e.g. $(a,b,c)=(1,2,3)$ satisfies these conditions. It's different if $a$ is a free variable:

Let's look at $$S_1=\{a|a<b\}, S_2=\{a|a<c\}.$$ We know $S_1=S_2$ because $P_1$ is equivalent to $P_2$. We also know $\frac{b+c}{2}\in S_2\setminus S_1$ because $b<\frac{b+c}{2}<c$. We therefore have arrived at a contradiction. If you were attempting to do a proof by contradiction, assuming $P_1$ or $P_2$, knowing that $b<c$ and that $P_1$ is equivalent to $P_2$, then yes you can conclude that all of $P_0, P_1, P_2$ are false. Otherwise, you have derived a contradiction, hopefully a mistake or misunderstanding somewhere, otherwise we are all in trouble...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ actually, $b\in S_2\setminus S_1$ if $b<c$, no need for $\frac{b+c}{2}$ $\endgroup$ – planckh Oct 14 '14 at 23:35
0
$\begingroup$

Nick had given an answer and it looks like it was deleted, I'm sorry if it was me, I didn't do it on purpose. He had pointed out that $\ P_1 $ and $\ P_2 $ must be equivalent as well, thus, the three statements can't be true.

Yeah, in general I would agree with him. The fact is that$\ P_1$ and$\ P_2 $ are inequalities, and it was perfectly clear that $\ b \neq c $. I know, what Nick said should always hold, yet I'm sure those inequalities were not the same... Anyway, what I'm saying is that, known that $\ P_2 $ is a necessary and sufficient condition for $\ P_0 $, one should be able to pick any $\ x<c $ for $\ P_0 $ to be true. But, as it turns out, it's not like that. In fact, if $\ b<a<c $ we have that $\ P_0 $ is both true and false, which is a contradiction, so they're all false. Alternatively, we may note that it must be $\ a<b $ to avoid the "contradictory interval". Thus, $\ P_2 $ loses its sufficiency, which is absurd since it was demonstrated. This is why I would conclude that all the propositions are false.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

One way out of your predicament would be if $a$ had to be an integer while $b$, $c$ were reals. Then for instance we could have:

$P_0: a<2$

$P_1:a<1.8$; and

$P_2:a<1.9$

These would be consistent with your problem (since $a$ is to be an integer). That is, for all $a\in\mathbb{Z}$, $P_0$ is logically equivalent to both $P_1$ and $P_2$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes,$\ a $ is a natural number whereas$\ b $ and$\ c $ are positive real numbers, but as I said in a comment,$\ P_0 $ is not an inequality. And this isn't an impossible imaginary situation because I bumped into it days ago, reading through various stuff, though I forgot about the specific context. My guess is that since both $\ P_1 $ and $\ P_2 $ have been proven to be equivalent to$\ P_0 $, the truth of either of the three statements implies that of the others, and that's exactly because $\ a $ can't lie in the "contradictory interval", so showing that$\ a <c $ gives us that$\ a <b $ as well. $\endgroup$ – Vincenzo Oliva Sep 3 '14 at 11:34
  • $\begingroup$ That is, we can't deduce the falsity of the three statements. $\endgroup$ – Vincenzo Oliva Sep 3 '14 at 11:37

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.