Definition of Strong and Weak form of a theorem

AI Thread Summary
A strong form of a theorem implies a weaker form, meaning if theorem p implies theorem q, then p is considered stronger than q. Typically, a strong version requires more hypotheses but yields a stronger result. However, there are exceptions where strong and weak forms can be equivalent, such as in the case of induction versus strong induction. The discussion also raises the question of whether dropping or weakening hypotheses while maintaining the same result constitutes strengthening or weakening, with the consensus leaning towards it being a form of strengthening. Ultimately, the terms "strong" and "weak" are often seen as semantic and may not carry significant mathematical weight.
JFo
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
Could someone explain to me what it means for a theorem to be a strong(er) form or a weak(er) form of another theorem?

I've heard these terms used over and over, but never bothered to ask. If I had to guess at a definition, I'd say that if q is a theorem then we say p is stronger if p implies q. Similarly p is weaker if q implies p. Am I close?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes. Generally - aren't there always exceptions in mathematics.

As a general rule the strong version will need more hypotheses than the weak version, but correspondingly prove a result that is stronger (and implies the weaker version).

This is not always the case, as there is at least on situation where the strong and weak version actually are equivalent: induction and strong induction are the same, but phrased differently so that one seems like a stronger (more powerful) result.
 
Thanks. I know it's mostly semantics, but I couldn't find a definition, or even a description, anywhere.
 
So if we have a theorem, and are then able to show that we can drop one of the hypotheses (or replace it with a weaker hypothesis) and still obtain the same result, would that be considered "strengthening" or "weakening"

Intuitively I would think strengthening, but then I don't know how that fits in with the quasi-definition given above since we have less hypotheses but the result remains unchanged. Or is this a different meaning of strong/weak entirely?
 
JFo said:
So if we have a theorem, and are then able to show that we can drop one of the hypotheses (or replace it with a weaker hypothesis) and still obtain the same result, would that be considered "strengthening" or "weakening"

Intuitively I would think strengthening, but then I don't know how that fits in with the quasi-definition given above since we have less hypotheses but the result remains unchanged. Or is this a different meaning of strong/weak entirely?

The theorem that assumes less in the hypothesis is "stronger" or "more general". I wouldn't worry too much about what these terms exactly mean though, since they don't carry much information.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Back
Top