Can we prove that (m+1)/(n+1) > m/n if n>m>0 using synthetic proof?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality (m+1)/(n+1) > m/n under the condition that n > m > 0. Participants explore various approaches to establish this inequality, including synthetic proof techniques and numerical examples.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how to prove the inequality, indicating a need for clarification.
  • Several numerical examples are proposed to illustrate the inequality, such as m=1, n=2 and m=2, n=3, suggesting a pattern may exist.
  • One participant calculates the difference between the two fractions and shows that it simplifies to a positive expression, indicating the inequality holds under the given conditions.
  • Another participant suggests that since m and n are positive, the fractions can be manipulated without changing the inequality, leading to a rearrangement that supports the original claim.
  • A later reply discusses the concept of working backward from the conclusion to the hypothesis, framing this approach as a synthetic proof, though it does not provide a definitive conclusion on the proof's validity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the validity of the inequality under the specified conditions, but there is no consensus on a singular method of proof, as multiple approaches and interpretations are presented.

Contextual Notes

Some steps in the mathematical reasoning are not fully resolved, and the discussion includes various assumptions about the properties of the numbers involved. The exploration of synthetic proof techniques remains informal and open-ended.

EqualElement
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Let m,n be real numbers. Prove that if n>m>0 , then (m+1)/(n+1) > m/n
I'm currently confuse in this one help will be very much needed
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How are you confused?
 
Cbarker1 said:
How are you confused?
I understand the question but don't really know how to prove it.
 
Let's start with several examples. What do you choose for n and m which m must be bigger than n and be positive for both (m and n)?
 

Attachments

  • mhb_quotebreak.png
    mhb_quotebreak.png
    8.8 KB · Views: 133
Last edited:
okay m=1 , n=2 would make it true.
 
Any other example? Just keep making examples to see a pattern...
 
m=2, n=3
m=3, n =4
m=12, n=69.
 
let us calculate $\frac{m+1}{n+1}- \frac{m}{n}$
= $\frac{n(m+1) - m(n+1)}{m(n+1)}$
= $\frac{n - m}{m(n+1)}$
as n > m >0 so both numerator and denominator positive and hence

$\frac{m+1}{n+1}- \frac{m}{n}> 0$

or $\frac{m+1}{n+1}> \frac{m}{n}$
 
Since m and n are positive numbers, so are n and n+ 1 so you can eliminate the fractions by multiplying both sides by n and n+ 1 without changing the inequality.. That gives you n(m+1)> m(n+1) so that nm+ n> mn+ m. Can you finish?
 
  • #10
What I showed above was that "if $\frac{m+1}{n+1}> \frac{m}{m}$ then n> m. What you want to prove is the other way around- just reverse every step. From n> m, mn+ n> mn+ m.
n(m+1)> m(n+ 1). Dividing both sides by the positive number n and n+ 1, $\frac{m+1}{n+1}> \frac{m}{n}$.

It is often useful to see how to prove something by working backward, from the conclusion to the hypothesis. As long as every step is "reversible", it isn't necessary to actually show the reverse. That is called "synthetic proof".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K