CTK Exchange
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Awards
Reciprocal links
Terms of use
Privacy Policy

Interactive Activities

Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Games & Puzzles
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
My Logo
Math Poll
Other Math sit's
Guest book
News sit's

Recommend this site

Manifesto: what CTK is about |Store| Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

CTK Exchange

Subject: "A strange question"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend    
Conferences The CTK Exchange High school Topic #251
Reading Topic #251
Ralph Boles
guest
Jul-21-03, 07:26 AM (EST)
 
"A strange question"
 
   Consider the following relation on the set of all people.

a R b <--> a and b have visited the same cities.

is R transitive i.e. (aRb and bRc -->aRc) ?

1) No.
suppose

a has visited Rome, paris, london
b has visited rome, paris, New York
c has visited paris, New York, Honolulu

then aRb since they have visited the same cities (Rome, Paris)
bRc (paris, New York)

but a is not related to c since they have only one city in common not "cities" as required.

2) Yes.

"have visited the same cities" means that the set of cities visited by a and b is the same. obviously trnasitive.
----

Basically the question reduces to wether there is an invisible "all" sitting in the phrase "have visitied (all) the same cities."

I think in math the convention is that there is never an implicit all, and in English in this case, there is an implicit "all."

what do you (all) think?


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Michael Klipper
guest
Jul-21-03, 09:33 AM (EST)
 
1. "RE: A strange question"
In response to message #0
 
   I personally disagree. If you were to hand me this question, I would interpret the implicit "all", even in the mathematical sense.

If you wanted to phrase this so that I did not think you meant "all", you would want to say "a R b if a and b have visited cities in common" or "visited some cities together".

You do raise a good point, however, in making sure that one is able to correctly distinguish universal from existential quantifiers, particularly in plain language.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

You may be curious to have a look at the old CTK Exchange archive.
Please do not post there.

|Front page| |Contents|

Copyright © 1996-2018 Alexander Bogomolny

66199465