Arbitrarily large vs. sufficiently large vs. infinitely large
While similar, "arbitrarily large" is not equivalent to "
sufficiently large". For instance, while it is true that prime numbers can be arbitrarily large (since there are infinitely many of them due to
Euclid's theorem), it is not true that all sufficiently large numbers are prime. As another example, the statement "f(x) is non-negative for arbitrarily large
x." could be rewritten as: :\forall n \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{, } \exists x \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{ such that } x > n \land f(x) \ge 0 However, using "
sufficiently large", the same phrase becomes: :\exists n \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{ such that } \forall x \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{, } x > n \Rightarrow f(x) \ge 0 Furthermore, "arbitrarily large" also does not mean "
infinitely large". For example, although prime numbers can be arbitrarily large, an infinitely large prime number does not exist—since all prime numbers (as well as all other integers) are finite. In some cases, phrases such as "the proposition P(x) is true for arbitrarily large
x" are used primarily for emphasis, as in "P(x) is true for all
x, no matter how large
x is." In these cases, the phrase "arbitrarily large" does not have the meaning indicated above (i.e., "however large a number, there will be
some larger number for which P(x) still holds."). Instead, the usage in this case is in fact logically synonymous with "all". == See also ==