3

$y\geq 3$, $y>3$

Implication and equality, is in the region of logic than mathematics.

If we take something easy like Germany and the EU:

Germany ⇒ EU

Because Germany is in the EU but the EU might be the UK or Sweden. (narrow goes to broad)

If we change it a bit:...

Germany ⇒ UK, Germany, Sweden...

It's STILL the same

Now let's change it to numbers

$2 \implies 2,3,4$

STILL the same, right?

So why does my mathematics teacher say this is false!:

$y>3 \to y\geq 3$

We can represent this as:

$4,5 \implies 3,4,5$

UPDATE:

For future users, my explanation is really bad and my knowledge limited. Look at the good answers instead.

Asaf Karagila
  • 393,674
  • 17
    $y > 3$ does imply $y \ge 3$, but I do not agree with the way you are using the notations. – Math Lover Nov 20 '17 at 17:36
  • THANKS! Now because my teacher is my teacher I need some sort of proof – NetCoder Nov 20 '17 at 17:36
  • 5
    Your mathematics teacher is wrong on this one. It's actually the converse, $y \ge 3 \Rightarrow y > 3$, that is false. Perhaps he/she confused those two somehow? Going through grade school, I also had a teacher try to tell me that "$\ge$" meant "greater than and equal to", which is ridiculous. So +1 to you for investigating more rather than taking what your teacher said at face value! – AlkaKadri Nov 20 '17 at 17:50
  • 8
    I think the confusion lies in the difference in meaning between $\implies$ ("then" or "implies") and $\in$ ("is a member of", or "in") and $\subset.$ ("is a subset of") So Germany is in the EU. And ${4,5}$ is a subset of ${3,4,5}$ – Doug M Nov 20 '17 at 17:54
  • 2
    As a TA, if I asked you to prove $y>3 \Rightarrow y\geq 3$ and you wrote the above argument, I would mark your answer as false. Because it is: it makes no mathematical sense. The original proposition is true; the proof is wrong. – Clement C. Nov 20 '17 at 20:03
  • @ClementC. Can you present me with good proof? – NetCoder Nov 20 '17 at 20:21
  • Depends on how formal (as in, formal system, etc.) you need to be. But read Henning Makholm's answer to see why yours is not. – Clement C. Nov 20 '17 at 20:22
  • @ClementC. Yes of course I know that my logic is potato but ⊆ and ∈ is not the same as ⟹ (or is it?) so it's hard to proof this – NetCoder Nov 20 '17 at 20:23
  • 1
    "(or is it?") No, it isn't. Adding "or is it" after a sentence does not change its veracity... And a formal proof will depend on what your course covered, how you defined the natural numbers, etc. (Things you haven't told us.) – Clement C. Nov 20 '17 at 20:25
  • @ClementC. I understand your situation and my bad and limited knowledge, therefore I can just accept this without further proof (until I get more knowledge) – NetCoder Nov 20 '17 at 20:26
  • I think what you're trying to get with the 4,5 / 3,4,5 example is that y>3 and y≥3 are for 3 FT, for 4 and 5 TT (and for e.g. 2 FF), which all satisfy logical implication (and there exists no counterexample for which you have TF) – Random832 Nov 20 '17 at 21:35

7 Answers7

26

It is true that $y>3 \Rightarrow y\ge 3$ for all $y$, but most of everything else you have written fails to make sense.


Writing "Germany $\Rightarrow$ EU" or "Germany $\Rightarrow$ EU, Germany Sweden" makes no sense.

The symbol $\Rightarrow$ is used between propositions, claims that can be true or false. But "Germany" isn't a proposition. It makes no sense to ask whether Germany is true or false; nor does it makes sense to ask whether EU is true or false, or for that matter whether the word salad "EU, Germany, Sweden" is true or false. So these are not things that can be meaningfully written on the two sides of $\Rightarrow$.

Similarly neither "$2$" nor "$2,3,4$" nor "$4,5$" nor "$3,4,5$" is something that can be true or false, so these things cannot be written as arguments to $\Rightarrow$ either.

"$2\Rightarrow 2,3,4$" and "$4,5\Rightarrow 3,4,5$" are both nonsense, just like "Germany $\Rightarrow$ EU" is.

You can write $\{4,5\} \subseteq \{3,4,5\}$ and get a meaningful (and in fact true) statement out of it, but removing the set brackets and changing $\subseteq$ into $\Rightarrow$ does not result in a mathematically meaningful formula.

  • So what is the MATHEMATICAL metaphor in this question that I can prove: {4,5}⊆{3,4,5} ? – NetCoder Nov 20 '17 at 17:50
  • My teacher wants proof and my whole class (except me and this 200 IQ guy says y>3 ⇒ y≥3) – NetCoder Nov 20 '17 at 17:52
  • @NetCoder: I'm not sure what you're looking for. The definition of $A\subseteq B$ is that every element of $A$ is also an element of $B$. Now the elements of ${4,5}$ are $4$ and $5$, and you can look at each of those one by one to see that it is indeed an element of ${3,4,5}$. – hmakholm left over Monica Nov 20 '17 at 17:53
  • If A⊆B Does that mean A⇒B? – NetCoder Nov 20 '17 at 17:54
  • 13
    @NetCoder: No it doesn't. "$A\subseteq B$" and "$A\Rightarrow B$" can't even make sense at the same time. You can write $A\subseteq B$ only if $A$ and $B$ are sets, and you can write $A\Rightarrow B$ only if $A$ and $B$ are propositions, but a set is not a proposition and a proposition is not a set. – hmakholm left over Monica Nov 20 '17 at 17:56
  • This together with the answer @santana-afton gave is the correct answer. The teacher (and class) seem to be confused on the meaning of what ⇒ and what ≥ means. – Emilgardis Nov 20 '17 at 19:26
  • 1
    +1 for the first sentence. It is very possible that the teacher is just saying "a wrong proof of a true statement is still wrong." – Clement C. Nov 20 '17 at 19:30
  • @Emilgardis: Actually what I suspect is that the OP is in a situation where $y>3 \Rightarrow y\ge 3$ is not a relevant observation for whatever his actual task is, but he has misunderstood what the teacher's objection to it is. – hmakholm left over Monica Nov 20 '17 at 19:32
  • @henning-makholm: I don't think so, OP wrote that this was on a test he had. But that would certainly be the most logical explaination – Emilgardis Nov 20 '17 at 19:43
  • 2
    @NetCoder: $A⊆B$ means that $x ∈ A⇒ x ∈ B$ – Eric Duminil Nov 20 '17 at 20:15
  • And if you want to translate that to the country analogy, "Person p is a citizen of Germany ⇒ p is a citizen of UK, Germany or Sweden" – Barmar Nov 20 '17 at 21:28
9

By definition, the statement “$y\ge 3$” is really shorthand for “$y>3$ or $y=3$.” If you assume that $y>3$ is true, then certainly “$y>3$ or $y=3$” is true, so $y\ge 3$ follows.

  • 2
    Splitting hairs, by definition it's often the other way around. $\leq$ is an order, and $<$ is the shorthand ($x< y$ being defined as $x\leq y$ and $x\neq y$). – Clement C. Nov 20 '17 at 20:09
  • @ClementC. Oh, interesting — thanks for the hair-splitting! I’ll have re-familiarize myself with the nitty-gritty of orders. – Santana Afton Nov 20 '17 at 20:26
4

It may also help to prove to your teacher that $y \ge 3 \implies y > 3$ is not true for all $y$. To do this you simply need to come up with an example value for $y$ such that $y \ge 3$ is true while $y > 3$ is false. Clearly taking $y = 3$ will do.

[If your teacher is still not convinced, I would say he or she is incompetent to teach mathematics. You probably can't say that in public, so if it gets this far, politely ask your teacher to explain how his or her views align with the truth table for logical implication.]

Rob Arthan
  • 48,577
1

To see why $y>3\implies y\ge 3$, note that the interval $(3,\infty)$ is a subset of the interval $[3,\infty)$, just as Germany is a subset of the EU, so the statement "I am in Germany" implies the statement "I am in the EU".

To see that the implication does not work the other way around, note that $y=3$ satisfies $y\ge 3$, but not $y>3$.

G Tony Jacobs
  • 31,218
0

It's certainly true that $y > 3 \Rightarrow y \geq 3$. However, the application of this can be subtle, which might be the source of the confusion between you and your teacher. For example: if the answer to a question is "$y > 3$", then "$y \geq 3$" will not be a correct answer - it would be like answering "In which country is Berlin?" with "Either Germany or Sweden". This is a technically true response, but it doesn't completely answer the question.

Likewise, if the correct answer to a question is "$y \geq 3$", then "$y > 3$" cannot also be correct - just because the right answer is a consequence of this answer doesn't mean that the right answer isn't a consequence of something else as well. To take an analogy, this is like answering "Which countries names begin with 'G'?" with just "Germany" - sure, everything on the list you gave is right, but not everything that's right is on there.

0

Aside from what @henning-makholm has answered. I would phrase your proof like the following.

Say $$y>3$$ then since $$y>3 \,\,\text{or}\,\, y = 3$$ is also a true statement (alas, $y>3$), we can say that $$y>3 \implies y\ge3$$


This is kind of similar to how $$y>3 \implies y>2$$ but do remember that just because the implication is true, it doesn't mean that $y>2$ is true.

0

The fact that $y>3 \implies y\geq3$ is an example of the logical rule of inference known as disjunction introduction. For more info on this and other rules see here. Disjunction introduction states that for any statements $A,B$ (a statement is a true or false sentence), from $A$, we can deduce $A\lor B$. We write this as:

$$A \therefore A\lor B$$

(the symbol $\therefore$ is read as "therefore" or "implies"). Keeping in mind that $y \geq 3$ really means $y =3 \lor y>3$, you can substitute $(y>3) \equiv A, y=3 \equiv B$. Thus,

$$A\therefore (A \lor B)$$ $$(y>3) \therefore (y>3 \lor y=3)$$

The really cool thing about disjunction introduction is that it works for any two statements, $A,B$. For instance, we may use it to make the following deduction:

Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is a man or pigs are flying in formation over the English Channel.

Disjunction introduction can be proved either via a truth table, or by the definition of the logical $\lor$ connective. Here is the truth table method:

Truth Table Proof of Disjunction Introduction

Evan Rosica
  • 1,166