I Can we extend the inequality 0 < sin x < x to sin(x/2), sin(x/5), and sin(3x)?

AI Thread Summary
The inequality 0 < sin x < x holds for 0 < x < π/2, and this can be extended to sin(x/2) and sin(x/5) for appropriate ranges of x. Specifically, 0 < sin(x/2) < x/2 is valid for 0 < x < π, and similarly for sin(x/5). The inequality also applies to sin(3x) as long as 3x remains within the interval where the original inequality is true. The discussion emphasizes the importance of adjusting the variable and the range accordingly. Overall, the extension of the inequality is valid with proper consideration of the variable transformations and their respective ranges.
Leong
Messages
379
Reaction score
2
Given that 0 < sin x < x is true for 0 < x < π/2.
From the above, can we conclude that 0 < sin (x/2) < x/2? How about 0 < sin (x/5) < x/5? Why?
How about 0<sin 3x < 3x ? Why?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
For suitable ranges of x, sure.

If you replace x by x/2 everywhere consistently, you don't change anything, you just replaced your variable. An analogy would be to replace all "x" by "y".

0 < sin y < y is true for 0 < y < π/2
Now define y=x/2.
 
mfb said:
For suitable ranges of x, sure.

If you replace x by x/2 everywhere consistently, you don't change anything, you just replaced your variable. An analogy would be to replace all "x" by "y".

0 < sin y < y is true for 0 < y < π/2
Now define y=x/2.
Thank you very much for the explanation.
 
Leong said:
Given that 0 < sin x < x is true for 0 < x < π/2.
From the above, can we conclude that 0 < sin (x/2) < x/2? How about 0 < sin (x/5) < x/5? Why?
How about 0<sin 3x < 3x ? Why?

Yes, but you also have to change your range:

##0 < \sin x < x ## for ##0 < x < \pi/2##

Is equivalent to:

##0 < \sin x/2 < x/2 ## for ##0 < x < \pi##
 
PeroK said:
Yes, but you also have to change your range:

##0 < \sin x < x ## for ##0 < x < \pi/2##

Is equivalent to:

##0 < \sin x/2 < x/2 ## for ##0 < x < \pi##
:ok::thumbup:
 
  • Like
Likes Dhiraj Shenoy
Leong said:
Given that 0 < sin x < x is true for 0 < x < π/2.
From the above, can we conclude that 0 < sin (x/2) < x/2? How about 0 < sin (x/5) < x/5? Why?
How about 0<sin 3x < 3x ? Why?
Essentially, as long as 0<x/2< ##\pi/2## (although this is not an iff condition) , same for 3x; you want 3x to fall within an interval where the property holds. This is essentially a change of variable.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top