This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

necessary and sufficient conditions.

I;d appreciate if someone could check my thinking is correct here.

For integers n: 4 divides n is a ......... condition for 4 divides n^2

P = 4 divides n
Q = 4 divides n^2

P is false, counter - example: 4/5
Q is also false = 4/(3^2)

Therefore P implies Q and Q implies P is true and so the answer is "necessary and sufficient"

Reply 1

generalebriety

16

No, you've got the idea completely wrong.

If P implies Q, then P is a sufficient condition for Q (and Q is necessary for P). If Q implies P, then P is a necessary condition for Q (and Q is sufficient for P). Can you see why?

Which way round is it here?

What about n=2 ?

OP

generalebriety

No, you've got the idea completely wrong.

If P implies Q, then P is a sufficient condition for Q (and Q is necessary for P). If Q implies P, then P is a necessary condition for Q (and Q is sufficient for P). Can you see why?

Which way round is it here?

okay, so i should be thinking:

P implies Q is false because P is sufficient for Q but Q is not necessary for P
in the same way, Q implies P is false because Q is sufficient for P but P is not necessary for Q?

Reply 4

generalebriety

16

LAMP

okay, so i should be thinking:

P implies Q is false because P is sufficient for Q but Q is not necessary for P
"P is sufficient for Q" and "Q is necessary for P" are the same statement. They mean the same thing. You can't have one true without the other being true, and vice versa.

Think about it. Does the statement "4 divides n" imply the statement "4 divides n^2"? Does the statement "4 divides n^2" imply the statement "4 divides n"? If your answer to either of these is yes, prove it; if your answer to either is no, give a counterexample.

Reply 5

DFranklin

18

LAMP

okay, so i should be thinking:

P implies Q is false because P is sufficient for Q but Q is not necessary for P
in the same way, Q implies P is false because Q is sufficient for P but P is not necessary for Q?

No. You should be deciding from the specific question about divisibility whether P implies Q, and whether Q implies P.

In other words, suppose we know 4 divides n. Does it follow that 4 must divide n^2? If so, P implies Q. If not, it doesn't.

Conversely, suppose we know 4 divides n^2. Does it follow that 4 must divide n? If so, Q implies P. If not, it doesn't.

Reply 6

LAMP

OP

DFranklin

No. You should be deciding from the specific question about divisibility whether P implies Q, and whether Q implies P.

In other words, suppose we know 4 divides n. Does it follow that 4 must divide n^2? If so, P implies Q. If not, it doesn't.

Conversely, suppose we know 4 divides n^2. Does it follow that 4 must divide n? If so, Q implies P. If not, it doesn't.

So, in our case, we know 4 doesn't always divide n, to give an integer answer so it follows that 4 doesn't divide n^2 because from integers at n=3, they both give fractions. So P implies Q. Also, we know 4 doesn;t always divide n^2 to give an integer answer for n=3, then 4 divide by n will not always give an integer answer either , so Q implies P.

OP

MAR

So what you;ve said is that if n/4 gives an integer answer then n^2/4 will always give an integer answer but not the other way around?

Reply 9

generalebriety

16

LAMP

So what you;ve said is that if n/4 gives an integer answer then n^2/4 will always give an integer answer but not the other way around?

That's what "4 divides n" means. :s-smilie:

If 4 divides n, then n/4 is an integer. Does n/4 being an integer imply that n^2/4 is an integer? Does n^2/4 being an integer imply n/4 is an integer?

Reply 10

Blue Bumble Bee

4

We have:

P = 4 divides n
Q = 4 divides n^2

and we want to find a way to express:
- if 4 divides n then 4 divides n^2

we know that p => Q as whenever 4 divides n, 4 will also divide n^2.
proving this goes as follows:
if 4 divides n then n = 4k
therefore n^2 =16k^2
therefore n^2 = 4(4k^2)
so, n^2 has a factor of 4

as P implies Q the statement is sufficient.
-----------------------------------------------------------
to check necessity lets assume that Q implies P
so, if 4 is a factor of n^2 then 4 is a factor of n
lets take 2 for example as this provides a counter example
2^2 is a factor of 4 however, 4 is not a factor of 2,
-----------------------------------------------------------
therefore the statement is sufficient but not necessary

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 11

Sodium229

10

Original post by Blue Bumble Bee

We have:P = 4 divides nQ = 4 divides n^2and we want to find a way to express: - if 4 divides n then 4 divides n^2we know that p => Q as whenever 4 divides n, 4 will also divide n^2.proving this goes as follows:if 4 divides n then n = 4ktherefore n^2 =16k^2therefore n^2 = 4(4k^2)so, n^2 has a factor of 4as P implies Q the statement is sufficient.-----------------------------------------------------------to check necessity lets assume that Q implies Pso, if 4 is a factor of n^2 then 4 is a factor of nlets take 2 for example as this provides a counter example2^2 is a factor of 4 however, 4 is not a factor of 2, -----------------------------------------------------------therefore the statement is sufficient but not necessary

You really are replying to a 13 year old thread :tongue:

necessary and sufficient conditions.

Related discussions

Articles for you