Proving 0 < x < 1 -> x^2 < 1: A Discrete Math Textbook

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the implication 0 < x < 1 leads to x^2 < 1 and its contrapositive x^2 >= 1 implies x <= 0 or x >= 1. The confusion arises from the statement that if x <= 0, the desired result is achieved without further proof. It is clarified that this is a proof by cases, where proving one case (x <= 0) suffices for the overall implication. Additionally, an alternative method is suggested, involving a transformation of x to facilitate the proof. Understanding this approach is essential for grasping the logic behind the proof.
agro
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
A Discrete Math textbook first proved that the statement:

0 < x < 1 -> x^2 < 1

is true (I have no problem following the proof).

It then went to prove the contrapositive:

x^2 >= 1 -> x <= 0 or x >= 1

Here's the proof:

Assume x^2 >= 1. (no problem here)
If x <= 0, we have the desired result, so assume x > 0. (what?!?)

The last part I wrote bedazzled me. What does the book mean when it says: "If x <= 0, we have the desired result"? For an implication to be true, the hypothesis and conclusion must be true. We already assumed that the hypothesis is true. Now for the conclusion to be either the left side of the OR statement is true or the right side is true. How can the book conclude that x <= 0 is true?

thanks a lot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Firstly, 0&lt;|x|&lt;1 \Longleftrightarrow 0&lt;x^2&lt;1

Secondly, x^2\geq1 \Longleftrightarrow |x|\geq1
 
The last part I wrote bedazzled me. What does the book mean when it says: "If x <= 0, we have the desired result"?

Well, you're trying to prove that x <= 0 or x >= 1. If it so happens that x <= 0, then you don't have to do any work to prove that x <= 0 or x >= 1.


The book is doing a proof by cases: x <= 0 or x > 0.
 
Another way to prove the converse is to let x = 1 + h, and then show that h < 0. This is pretty straightforward. Try it yourself.
 
That's a fairly standard technique so you might want to make certain you understand:

If we want to prove "A is true or B is true", it is sufficient to prove that "If A is NOT true, then B is true".
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top