''Without loss of generality'' (often
abbreviated
An abbreviation (from Latin ''brevis'', meaning ''short'') is a shortened form of a word or phrase, by any method. It may consist of a group of letters or words taken from the full version of the word or phrase; for example, the word ''abbrevia ...
to WOLOG, WLOG or w.l.o.g.; less commonly stated as ''without any loss of generality'' or ''with no loss of generality'') is a frequently used expression in
mathematics. The term is used to indicate the assumption that follows is chosen arbitrarily, narrowing the premise to a particular case, but does not affect the validity of the
proof in general. The other cases are sufficiently similar to the one presented that proving them follows by essentially the same logic. As a result, once a proof is given for the particular case, it is
trivial
Trivia is information and data that are considered to be of little value. It can be contrasted with general knowledge and common sense.
Latin Etymology
The ancient Romans used the word ''triviae'' to describe where one road split or forked ...
to adapt it to prove the conclusion in all other cases.
In many scenarios, the use of "without loss of generality" is made possible by the presence of
symmetry. For example, if some property ''P''(''x'',''y'') of
real number
In mathematics, a real number is a number that can be used to measure a ''continuous'' one-dimensional quantity such as a distance, duration or temperature. Here, ''continuous'' means that values can have arbitrarily small variations. Every ...
s is known to be symmetric in ''x'' and ''y'', namely that ''P''(''x'',''y'') is equivalent to ''P''(''y'',''x''), then in proving that ''P''(''x'',''y'') holds for every ''x'' and ''y'', one may assume "without loss of generality" that ''x'' ≤ ''y''. There is no loss of generality in this assumption, since once the case ''x'' ≤ ''y''
⇒ ''P''(''x'',''y'') has been proved, the other case follows by interchanging ''x'' and ''y'' : ''y'' ≤ ''x'' ⇒ ''P''(''y'',''x''), and by symmetry of ''P'', this implies ''P''(''x'',''y''), thereby showing that ''P''(''x'',''y'') holds for all cases.
On the other hand, if neither such a symmetry nor another form of equivalence can be established, then the use of "without loss of generality" is incorrect and can amount to an instance of
proof by example – a
logical fallacy In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (; Latin for " tdoes not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic syst ...
of proving a claim by proving a non-representative example.
Example
Consider the following
theorem
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proved, or can be proved. The ''proof'' of a theorem is a logical argument that uses the inference rules of a deductive system to establish that the theorem is a logical consequence of t ...
(which is a case of the
pigeonhole principle
In mathematics, the pigeonhole principle states that if items are put into containers, with , then at least one container must contain more than one item. For example, if one has three gloves (and none is ambidextrous/reversible), then there mu ...
):
A proof:
The above argument works because the exact same reasoning could be applied if the alternative assumption, namely, that the first object is blue, were made, or, similarly, that the words 'red' and 'blue' can be freely exchanged in the wording of the proof. As a result, the use of "without loss of generality" is valid in this case.
See also
*
Up to
*
Mathematical jargon
References
External links
*{{PlanetMath , urlname=WLOG, title=WLOG
"Without Loss of Generality" by John Harrison - discussion of formalizing "WLOG" arguments in an automated theorem prover.
Mathematical terminology