Problem 1 asks to determine (with brief justifications) the truth value of the following statements about integers:

1. is False. To show this we provide a counterexample: Specific integers such that For example,

2. is False. To show this we need to exhibit for each integer an integer such that For example, Note that, although is a fixed integer once we know we are not giving a fixed value of that serves as a simultaneous counterexample for all values of

3. is True. To show this we exhibit for each integer a specific integer such that For example: Note that, although is a fixed integer once we know we are not giving a fixed value of that works simultaneously for all

4. is True. To show this, we exhibit specific values of such that For example:

Problem 2 asks to show by contradiction that no integer can be both odd and even. Here is the proof: Suppose otherwise, i.e., there is an integer, let’s call it such that is both odd and even. This means that there are integers such that (since is odd) and (since is even).

Then we have that or But this is impossible, since 1 is not divisible by 2. We have reached a contradiction, and therefore our assumption that there is such an integer ought to be false. This means that no integer can be both odd and even, which is what we wanted to show.

Note that we have not shown that every integer is either odd or even. We will use mathematical induction to do this.

Problem 3 asks for symbolic formulas stating Goldbach’s conjecture and the twin primes conjecture (both are famous open problems in number theory).

Goldbach’s conjecture asserts that every even integer larger than 2 is sum of two primes:

Here, is the formula asserting that is even, namely, and is the formula (given in the quiz) asserting that is prime. Note we had to add existential quantifiers in order to be able to refer to the two prime numbers that add up to

The twin primes conjecture asserts that there are infinitely many primes such that is also prime.

The difficulty here is in saying “there are infinitely many,” since the quantifier only allows us to mention one integer at a time, and writing something of infinite length such as is not allowed.

We follow the suggestion given in the quiz, and represent “there are infinitely many with [some property]” by saying “for all there is a larger with [some property].”

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, February 26th, 2010 at 1:24 pm and is filed under 187: Discrete mathematics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I am not sure which statement you heard as the "Ultimate $L$ axiom," but I will assume it is the following version: There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals, and for all sentences $\varphi$ that hold in $V$, there is a universally Baire set $A\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ such that, letting $\theta=\Theta^{L(A,{\mathbb R})}$, we have that $HOD^{L(A,{\ma […]

A Wadge initial segment (of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$) is a subset $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ such that whenever $A\in\Gamma$ and $B\le_W A$, where $\le_W$ denotes Wadge reducibility, then $B\in\Gamma$. Note that if $\Gamma\subseteq\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ and $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models \Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$, then $\Gamma$ is a Wadge initial se […]

Craig: For a while, there was some research on improving bounds on the number of variables or degree of unsolvable Diophantine equations. Unfortunately, I never got around to cataloging the known results in any systematic way, so all I can offer is some pointers to relevant references, but I am not sure of what the current records are. Perhaps the first pape […]

Yes. Consider, for instance, Conway's base 13 function $c$, or any function that is everywhere discontinuous and has range $\mathbb R$ in every interval. Pick continuous bijections $f_n:\mathbb R\to(-1/n,1/n)$ for $n\in\mathbb N^+$. Pick a strictly decreasing sequence $(x_n)_{n\ge1}$ converging to $0$. Define $f$ by setting $f(x)=0$ if $x=0$ or $\pm x_n […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

I feel this question may be a duplicate, because I am pretty certain I first saw the paper I mention below in an answer here. You may be interested in reading the following: MR2141502 (2006c:68092) Reviewed. Calude, Cristian S.(NZ-AUCK-C); Jürgensen, Helmut(3-WON-C). Is complexity a source of incompleteness? (English summary), Adv. in Appl. Math. 35 (2005), […]

The smallest such ordinal is $0$ because you defined your rank (height) inappropriately (only successor ordinals are possible). You want to define the rank of a node without successors as $0$, and of a node $a$ with successors as the supremum of the set $\{\alpha+1\mid\alpha$ is the rank of an immediate successor of $a\}$. With this modification, the smalles […]

The perfect reference for this is MR2562557 (2010j:03061) Reviewed. Steel, J. R.(1-CA). The derived model theorem. In Logic Colloquium 2006. Proceedings of Annual European Conference on Logic of the Association for Symbolic Logic held at the Radboud University, Nijmegen, July 27–August 2, 2006, S. B. Cooper, H. Geuvers, A. Pillay and J. Väänänen, eds., Lectu […]

Consider $A=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb R^2\mid x\notin L[y]\}$. Check that this set is $\Pi^1_2$ (this is similar to the proof that there is a $\Delta^1_2$ well-ordering in $L$). The point is that $A$ does not admit a projective uniformization. It does not really matter that the number of Cohen reals you added is $\aleph_2$; any uncountable number would work. The rea […]