Analysis and how to solve things (methods)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gillouche
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges faced by a physics student in solving analysis homework, particularly focusing on understanding logical steps in proofs and developing abstract reasoning skills. Participants explore methods and guidelines for approaching mathematical problems, with an emphasis on inequalities and proof techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in understanding the logical steps required to prove mathematical statements and seeks methods to improve their reasoning skills.
  • Another participant suggests that to solve the inequality (x-b)(x+b) ≤ 0, one must consider the conditions under which the product is zero and explore values of x that satisfy the inequality.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of analyzing the problem in steps and considering various cases, such as what happens when x is greater than or less than certain values.
  • Some participants propose that understanding the conditions for a product to be negative can aid in solving inequalities, emphasizing the importance of exploring possibilities rather than relying on formulas.
  • Participants share a desire for generalization in problem-solving approaches, such as using proof by contradiction as a strategy for certain types of inequalities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for structured approaches to problem-solving in analysis, but there is no consensus on specific methods or guidelines that should be followed. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best strategies for developing mathematical maturity and abstract reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge their varying levels of mathematical maturity and the challenges of transitioning from applied mathematics in physics to pure mathematics in analysis. There are references to specific exercises, but the focus remains on general strategies rather than specific solutions.

gillouche
Gold Member
Messages
25
Reaction score
7
Hi !

at the moment, I have big troubles to solve exercices for my analysis homework. This is not a problem with an exercise in particular, it really is about how to solve things. I just started a bachelor's degree in physics and I have no mathematical maturity. I can easily use mathematics to solve physics problem but I have no idea what I am doing with "pure mathematics" (analysis).

I fail to understand the logical steps I have to make to prove anything.

I would like to know if there was some sort of methods/guidelines/anything really, I could follow for some cases that would help me see the steps I have to make to prove something and more importantly, how to know that my result is valid. How to know that I need to do a proof by contradiction or something else ?

I asked the same question to the teaching assistant and I am waiting for an answer but I thought that I could ask other people to have maybe more help.

How to get better at abstract reasoning for unknown solutions ? For example, I understand the proofs in class, I can do them again but I am totally unable to think like that myself. I really don't understand what my objectives are when I read an exercise.

Here is an example :

Let b ∈ R be a fixed real number, solve the inequality x2 ≤ b2. Give a necessary and sufficient condition on a and b so that a2 ≤ b2.

If I solve the inequality I have (x-b)(x+b) <= 0 but after that, I don't know what I need to do.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gillouche said:
Hi !

at the moment, I have big troubles to solve exercices for my analysis homework. This is not a problem with an exercise in particular, it really is about how to solve things. I just started a bachelor's degree in physics and I have no mathematical maturity. I can easily use mathematics to solve physics problem but I have no idea what I am doing with "pure mathematics" (analysis).

I fail to understand the logical steps I have to make to prove anything.

I would like to know if there was some sort of methods/guidelines/anything really, I could follow for some cases that would help me see the steps I have to make to prove something and more importantly, how to know that my result is valid. How to know that I need to do a proof by contradiction or something else ?

I asked the same question to the teaching assistant and I am waiting for an answer but I thought that I could ask other people to have maybe more help.

How to get better at abstract reasoning for unknown solutions ? For example, I understand the proofs in class, I can do them again but I am totally unable to think like that myself. I really don't understand what my objectives are when I read an exercise.

Here is an example :
If I solve the inequality I have (x-b)(x+b) <= 0 but after that, I don't know what I need to do.

Well, ask yourself: How do I make the product (x-b)(x+b) = 0? This is a simple question. All you need is a knowledge of arithmetic to answer it.
 
x must be equal to b or -b for the inequality to be equal to zero. But what about the inequality lower than 0? I can try to guess values of x to get a result lower than 0 like if x < b, then I get a product < 0.

So the possible values for x to to satisfy this inequality are b, -b and x < b. All those values satisfy the x2 <= b2. Is that a satisfactory answer for the first part ?

After that, how do I answer the rest of the question about a and b ?

This sounds more like a homework problem but I didn't want my post to turn like this. My main problem (I am sure I have others) is not about a specific exercises but I have no process in my head that I can follow and/or apply to analysis problems to solve them.

I am more looking for generalization like if I have an inequality ab >= 0 to prove, I should try to prove ab < 0 and if I get a result which is impossible, I would have proven by contradiction that ab can only be greater or equal than 0. This is an example to help me visualize a process which will help me solve that kind of exercises;
 
gillouche said:
x must be equal to b or -b for the inequality to be equal to zero. But what about the inequality lower than 0? I can try to guess values of x to get a result lower than 0 like if x < b, then I get a product < 0.

So the possible values for x to to satisfy this inequality are b, -b and x < b. All those values satisfy the x2 <= b2. Is that a satisfactory answer for the first part ?

After that, how do I answer the rest of the question about a and b ?

This sounds more like a homework problem but I didn't want my post to turn like this. My main problem (I am sure I have others) is not about a specific exercises but I have no process in my head that I can follow and/or apply to analysis problems to solve them.

I am more looking for generalization like if I have an inequality ab >= 0 to prove, I should try to prove ab < 0 and if I get a result which is impossible, I would have proven by contradiction that ab can only be greater or equal than 0. This is an example to help me visualize a process which will help me solve that kind of exercises;
You have to analyze these problems in steps: there are very few which can be solved by using this formula or that. This is the essence of analysis: to analyze the problem.

You want to find out what values of x make this relation, (x-b)(x+b) ≤ 0, true. You know that x = b or x = -b satisfy the equality portion. What happens if x > b? If x > -b?

Sometimes, it comes down to a process of exploring a finite number of possibilities.
 
gillouche said:
Hi !

at the moment, I have big troubles to solve exercices for my analysis homework. This is not a problem with an exercise in particular, it really is about how to solve things. I just started a bachelor's degree in physics and I have no mathematical maturity. I can easily use mathematics to solve physics problem but I have no idea what I am doing with "pure mathematics" (analysis).

I fail to understand the logical steps I have to make to prove anything.

I would like to know if there was some sort of methods/guidelines/anything really, I could follow for some cases that would help me see the steps I have to make to prove something and more importantly, how to know that my result is valid. How to know that I need to do a proof by contradiction or something else ?

I asked the same question to the teaching assistant and I am waiting for an answer but I thought that I could ask other people to have maybe more help.

How to get better at abstract reasoning for unknown solutions ? For example, I understand the proofs in class, I can do them again but I am totally unable to think like that myself. I really don't understand what my objectives are when I read an exercise.

Here is an example :
If I solve the inequality I have (x-b)(x+b) <= 0 but after that, I don't know what I need to do.

Thank you.
For a product of two terms to be negative, one must be negative and the other must be positive.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K