You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I'm having a little trouble understanding how to interpret some logic statements.
I'm aware that
reads as "For all x, there is at least one y such that P(x,y) is true."Is it correct to say that
reads as "There is at least one x such that P(x,y) is true for all y"?Furthermore, how do I interpret these statements?
Can we simply interpret them as "there exists an x AND there exists a y" and similarly for the subsequent statement? Or is this wrong?
It's been a while and you should wait for someone to confirm, but as far as I know yes, everything you've written is fine
Offline
I'm aware that
reads as "For all x, there is at least one y such that P(x,y) is true."Is it correct to say that
reads as "There is at least one x such that P(x,y) is true for all y"?
where
denotes the statement .You should also be aware that
and do not commute: . In the first statement, the y depends on the particular x chosen; different choices of x may require different y. In the second statement, however, there is a unique y for all the x you choose.For example, in the definition of continuity above, let us reverse the order of
and :This is no longer the definition of continuity, but of uniform continuity, which is a stronger condition than continuity.
Furthermore, how do I interpret these statements?
Can we simply interpret them as "there exists an x AND there exists a y" and similarly for the subsequent statement? Or is this wrong?
Its the same thing.
240 books currently added on Goodreads
Offline
Thanks a lot -- beautifully explained, makes perfect sense now.
Pages: 1