Proving Direct Proportion of \frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y} with \frac{1}{x}

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reshma
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that \(\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}\) is directly proportional to \(\frac{1}{x}\). Participants explore the definitions and implications of proportionality in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the meaning of proportionality and question whether the term in the discussion can be considered a constant. There are attempts to clarify definitions and explore the implications of variable relationships.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with various interpretations of proportionality being explored. Some participants have offered definitions and examples, while others express skepticism about the original question's formulation. There is no explicit consensus on the definitions being used.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the variables \(x\) and \(y\) are not independent, which complicates the assertion of direct proportionality. The discussion also touches on the definitions of constants in the context of proportional relationships.

Reshma
Messages
749
Reaction score
6
This seems to be a simple question. But I'm rather dubious at a particular step.
The question is: Prove
[tex]\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}[/tex] is directly proportional to [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex]

This how I went about it:
[tex]\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}=\frac{y-x}{xy}[/tex]
[tex]\frac{y-x}{xy}=[\frac{y-x}{y}]\frac{1}{x}[/tex]

Can we say the quantity on the right hand side is proportional to [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, what does proportional mean?
 
I'll give a more practical definition: If the quantity on the right hand side increases or decreases then the quantity on the left hand side also increases or decreases.There is a constant which can be any real number which relates the two quantites.

Now, in context to this question: Can you call the term in the parenthesis a 'constant' since both 'x' and 'y' are variables?
 
So when you say

[tex]a \propto b[/tex]

you mean that there's some [itex]k[/itex] independent of [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] such that

[tex]a = k b[/tex]?

or to be more precise, [itex]a \propto b[/itex] iff [itex]\frac{da}{db}[/itex] is constant.

Then

[tex]\frac{1}{x} - \frac{1}{y} \propto \frac{1}{x}[/tex]

is indeed false.

For example, just let [itex]u = \frac{1}{x}[/itex], and [itex]v = \frac{1}{y}[/itex]. Then your question is to prove

[tex]u - v \propto u[/tex]

which is silly unless [itex]v \propto u[/itex] (easy to prove), and presumably [itex]y[/itex] is independent of [itex]x[/itex] in your question~

I imagine that your teacher isn't using that definition for proportionality, because otherwise he/she is being very silly~
 
Last edited:
I know this a silly sum. But I think more precise definition of proportionality would be the geometrical one:

[tex]y \propto x[/tex]

[tex]y = m x[/tex]
m is the slope. With variable y on y-axis and variable x on x-axis.
 
Yeah, that's the same as the one I gave in a different form :smile:

[tex]y \propto x \Longleftrightarrow \frac{dy}{dx} \ \mbox{is constant}[/tex]
 
Nope,in the way it's formulated,it definitely doesn't match our understanding of direct proportionality.

Daniel.
 
Of course the x and y above are different from the question.
The result of this question seems obivious by your second method and you can get a straight line on a graph considering :
[tex]\frac{1}{x} - \frac{1}{y}[/tex]
on y-axis &
[tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex]
on x-axis.
 
Actually, my definition doesn't work! Ignore it! That's what I get for staying up all night writing lab reports.

Your geometrical one is fine though. They aren't the same, I'm just silly when I haven't slept in a day :wink:
 
  • #10
Nope,direct proportionality means

[tex]a \propto b \leftrightarrow a=k b,k\in R^{*}_{+}[/tex]

Daniel.
 
  • #11
What's [tex]R^{*}_{+}[/tex]?

'k' can be any real number, right?
 
  • #12
The real positive semiaxis.

[tex]\mathbb{R}_{+}^{*}=:\{x\in \mathbb{R}| x>0 \}[/tex]

Daniel.
 
  • #13
But the spring constant 'k' in the restoring force of an oscillating body is given by:
F = -kx , x-displacement
 
Last edited:
  • #14
That's not a correct formula.F=-kx.It's not a direct proportionality.As "x" increases,the force decreases & viceversa.

Daniel.
 
  • #15
Reshma said:
This seems to be a simple question. But I'm rather dubious at a particular step.
The question is: Prove
[tex]\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}[/tex] is directly proportional to [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex]

This how I went about it:
[tex]\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}=\frac{y-x}{xy}[/tex]
[tex]\frac{y-x}{xy}=[\frac{y-x}{y}]\frac{1}{x}[/tex]

Can we say the quantity on the right hand side is proportional to [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex]?
No, because [tex]\frac{y-x}{y}[/tex] is not a constant. A change in x changes both terms.
 
  • #16
The solution

I have found the solution to this question. The problem was the crucial 'missing' component. Now, don't blame me, the source of this question is a very bad text. Let me demonstrate how 'excruciatingly' simple the solution is.

The missing component:

[tex]y \propto x[/tex]

Now the proof:

[tex]y \propto x[/tex]
Hence;
[tex]\frac{1}{y} \propto\frac{1}{x}[/tex]
So;
[tex]\frac{1}{y} \ = k \frac{1}{x}[/tex]
k= constant

Consider,
[tex]\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y} = \frac{1}{x} - k \frac{1}{x}[/tex]

Hence;
[tex]\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y} = (1-k)\frac{1}{x}[/tex]

Finally,
[tex](\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y})\propto\frac{1}{x}[/tex]

Voila... :biggrin:!
 
  • #17
You mean "voilà"...:wink: Yeah,hopefully you'll be more careful in the future.You had us all puzzled...

Daniel.
 
  • #18
Or as teenagers nowadays like to say "Viola"! I figure about 10% of them know it's a joke, the other 90% really think that's the correct pronunciation of "voilà".
 
  • #19
Well, I don't have a French PC.
 
  • #20
What is direct proportionality?
In ordinary life I understand it.For example if I buy more tickets i will more pay.But in physical formula I don t understand it.For example in formula of momentum we have p=m*v.But why is there " * "?Why not "+"?That means p=m+v?I know that is stupid question,but I m down.
From what is this formula,p=m*v derived?
Thanks
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
64
Views
7K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K