Can We Prove ac < bd Under Given Conditions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter objectivesea
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the inequality ac < bd under the conditions 0 ≤ a < b and 0 ≤ c < d, as presented in problem 5 of Michael Spivak's "Calculus," 4th Edition. The proof utilizes axioms of real numbers, particularly focusing on properties of positive numbers and their products. The conclusion is reached by demonstrating that bd - ac > 0, confirming that ac < bd is valid under the specified conditions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real number axioms as outlined in Spivak's "Calculus."
  • Familiarity with the definitions of inequalities (a < b and a > b).
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical proofs and logical reasoning.
  • Experience with algebraic manipulation and properties of positive numbers.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of inequalities in real analysis.
  • Learn about the axioms of real numbers in detail, particularly those relevant to multiplication and addition.
  • Explore proofs involving inequalities and their applications in calculus.
  • Review problem-solving techniques for real analysis exams, focusing on similar inequality proofs.
USEFUL FOR

Students in real analysis courses, particularly those preparing for exams, mathematicians interested in foundational proofs, and educators teaching concepts of inequalities and real number properties.

objectivesea
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that for all numbers a, b, c, d: if [tex]0 \leq a < b[/tex] and [tex]0 \leq c < d[/tex] then [tex]ac < bd[/tex].

This is problem 5 from chapter 1 of Michael Spivak's "Calculus", 4th Edition. It is the text for my real analysis course.

I should also mention that this is not a homework problem, though similar content will be on my exam tomorrow and I'm hoping to have a better understanding by then.

Thanks for your help!

Homework Equations



Use only the following axioms. For all numbers,

P1. [tex]a+(b+c)[/tex]

P2. [tex]a+0 = 0+a = a[/tex]

P3. [tex]a+(-a) = (-a)+(a)=0[/tex]

P4. [tex]a+b = b+a[/tex]

P5. [tex]a \cdot (b \cdot c) = (a \cdot b) \cdot c[/tex]

P6. [tex]a \cdot 1 = 1 \cdot a = a[/tex]

P7. [tex]a \neq 0 \rightarrow \exists a^{-1}[/tex], [tex]a \cdot a^{-1} = 1[/tex]

P8. [tex]a \cdot b = b \cdot a[/tex]

P9. [tex]a \cdot (b + c) = a \cdot b+b \cdot c[/tex]

Let [tex]P[/tex] be be a collection such that [tex]a \in P \leftrightarrow a > 0[/tex]
Then for all numbers,
P10. Only one of the following is true:
[tex] \begin{align}<br /> &a=0\\<br /> \textrm{or }& &a \in P\\<br /> \textrm{or }& &-a \in P<br /> \end{align}[/tex]
P11. [tex]a \in P \wedge b \in P \rightarrow (a+b) \in P[/tex]
P12. [tex]a \in P \wedge b \in P \rightarrow (a \cdot b) \in P[/tex]

"[tex]a > b[/tex]" is defined as the relation: [tex]: {(a,b): (a-b) \in P}[/tex]
"[tex]a < b[/tex]" is defined as the relation: [tex]: {(a,b): b > a}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



Only one of the following is true:
[tex]\begin{align}<br /> a&=0 &\wedge& &c &= 0\\<br /> a&>0 &\wedge& &c &= 0\\<br /> a&=0 &\wedge& &c &> 0\\<br /> a&>0 &\wedge& &c &> 0<br /> \end{align}[/tex]

Suppose that anyone of (1), (2), (3) are true, then

[tex]ac = 0[/tex].

From P12, [tex]bd \in P[/tex]. So By definition of [tex]P[/tex],
[tex]bd > 0 =ac[/tex]

Suppose that (4) is true, then
[tex]a \in P \wedge b \in P \wedge c \in P \wedge d \in P \wedge (b-a) \in P \wedge (d-c) \in P[/tex]

I'm not sure where to go from here...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Figured it out!

(1) Since [tex]b \in P[/tex] and [tex](d - c) \in P[/tex], we get [tex](bd - bc) \in P[/tex] using P12.

(2) Since [tex]c \in P[/tex] and [tex](b - a) \in P[/tex], we get [tex](bc - ac) \in P[/tex] using P12.

Then from (1) and (2) we get [tex](bd - bc + bc - ac) \in P[/tex] using P11.

Using P3 and P2 we get [tex](bd - ac) \in P[/tex], thus [tex]ac < bd[/tex]
 
A bit late, but...

You want to show that bd - ac > 0. We have

bd - ac = b(d - c) + c(b - a) > 0 + 0 = 0. QED
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K