Is Indirect Proof Easier for Proving Inequality Involving Real Numbers?

In summary, we can prove that if 3x^{4}+1 ≤ x^{7} + x^{3}, then x > 0 by using the contrapositive statement and showing that it is equivalent to the original statement. This is because for any x ≤ 0, 3x4 + 1 > x7 +x3, and thus the original statement holds true.
  • #1
tehdiddulator
13
0

Homework Statement


Let x [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ
Prove that if 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1≤x[itex]^{7}[/itex]+x[itex]^{3}[/itex], then x > 0

Homework Equations



None

The Attempt at a Solution


Assume
3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1≤x[itex]^{7}[/itex]+x[itex]^{3}[/itex]
then 0 ≤ -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]-1≤x[itex]^{7}[/itex]+x[itex]^{3}[/itex]
Then I assumed that each was greater than or equal to 0, which I thought gave the desired result. No examples in the book to really guide me...any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
tehdiddulator said:
0 ≤ -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]-1

That can't be right, no matter what value x has.



You might want to think it like this instead: If x≤0, then x7+x3 is always smaller than 1+3x4. Why is this?
 
  • #3
Would it be because both powers of x are odd, which will mean it is always negative? So proving the contapositive would be an easier route than a direct proof?
 
  • #4
tehdiddulator said:
Would it be because both powers of x are odd, which will mean it is always negative?
To be clearer, say what "it" refers to.
tehdiddulator said:
So proving the contapositive would be an easier route than a direct proof?
 
  • #5
Still not entirely sure if I did it correctly...this class is giving me such a headache. Not sure if its the book or just my lack of understanding but some of these topics covered are going straight over my head...



Let x[itex]\in[/itex]ℝ. If 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1 ≤ x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex], then x > 0.
Proof
Contrapositive.
If x≤ 0, then 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1> x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex]
Assume x ≤ 0 for x [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ.
Since for all values of x less than or equal to zero would produce a true statement.
Since 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1 < 0 for x ≤ 0 and 0 > x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex] for x ≤ 0.


Would this suffice as a proof? It seems like I don't know the tools to know how to get there, it always seems obvious when I look at the answer key, but have really no idea how to get there.
 
  • #6
Oh...and I would just like to point out how the book does this type of problem. Seems incredibly non-intuitive to me.

Let x [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ. If x[itex]^{5}[/itex] -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+2x[itex]^{3}[/itex]-x[itex]^{2}[/itex] +4x - 1 ≥ 0, then x ≥ 0.
Proof.
Assume that x < 0. Then x[itex]^{5}[/itex] < 0, 2x[itex]^{3}[/itex] < 0, and 4x < 0. In addition, -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex] < 0 and -x[itex]^{2}[/itex] < 0.

Thus x[itex]^{5}[/itex] -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+2x[itex]^{3}[/itex]-x[itex]^{2}[/itex] +4x - 1 < 0 - 1 < 0.
as desired.

This is what I have to go on for an example...there has got to be a better way to do these proofs. I'm just regurgitating the same problem, except with different numbers and yet I have no idea what I'm doing.
 
  • #7
tehdiddulator said:
Still not entirely sure if I did it correctly...this class is giving me such a headache. Not sure if its the book or just my lack of understanding but some of these topics covered are going straight over my head...
Let x[itex]\in[/itex]ℝ. If 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1 ≤ x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex], then x > 0.
Proof
Contrapositive.
If x≤ 0, then 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1> x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex]
Assume x ≤ 0 for x [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ.
Since for all values of x less than or equal to zero would produce a true statement.
You can omit the sentence above. Instead, show using inequalities why this is so.

For any real x, 3x4 + 1 ≥ 1 > 0
For any x ≤ 0, x7 ≤ 0 and x3 ≤ 0, hence x7 +x3 ≤ 0
Then for any x ≤ 0, 3x4 + 1 > x7 +x3.
tehdiddulator said:
Since 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1 < 0 for x ≤ 0 and 0 > x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex] for x ≤ 0.

This shows that the contrapositive is a true statement, and the contrapositive is equivalent to the original statement, so it is true as well.Would this suffice as a proof? It seems like I don't know the tools to know how to get there, it always seems obvious when I look at the answer key, but have really no idea how to get there.
 
  • #8
tehdiddulator said:
Would it be because both powers of x are odd, which will mean it is always negative? So proving the contapositive would be an easier route than a direct proof?

Yes I think this is one of the most obvious cases where indirect proof is easier than direct proof. For a direct proof, you'd need to solve the equation 1+3x4-x3-x7=0.
 

Related to Is Indirect Proof Easier for Proving Inequality Involving Real Numbers?

1. What are real numbers?

Real numbers are numbers that can be represented on a number line and include both rational and irrational numbers. Examples of real numbers are 1, -5, 3.14, and √2.

2. What is the difference between a rational and an irrational number?

A rational number is a number that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. This means that the decimal representation of a rational number either terminates or repeats. An irrational number, on the other hand, cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers and has a non-repeating decimal representation.

3. How do you prove that a number is irrational?

To prove that a number is irrational, you can use the proof by contradiction method. Assume that the number is rational and express it as a ratio of two integers. Then, show that this leads to a contradiction, such as an integer being both even and odd, which is impossible. This proves that the number cannot be rational and therefore must be irrational.

4. What are some common techniques used in proofs involving real numbers?

Some common techniques used in proofs involving real numbers include the use of properties of real numbers, such as the associative, commutative, and distributive properties, as well as the use of algebraic manipulation and logical reasoning.

5. Can real numbers be used to represent all quantities in the physical world?

No, real numbers cannot represent all quantities in the physical world. For example, complex numbers are often used to represent quantities in electrical engineering and imaginary numbers are used in quantum mechanics. However, real numbers are widely used and applicable in many areas of science and mathematics.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
835
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
574
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
860
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
530
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
856
Back
Top