Determining if a number is within an interval

  • Thread starter Thread starter rxh140630
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interval
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the expression yk + (1-k)x lies within the interval [a,b] given the conditions 0<k<1, x<y, and x,y ∈ [a,b]. The initial proof attempts to show that yk + (1-k)x is bounded by x and y, which are both within [a,b]. However, a key point raised is that the statement yk + (1-k)y = y is not universally valid for all k, and the requirement a < b is emphasized. Despite this, the proof is acknowledged as fundamentally correct, with suggestions for clearer exposition. Overall, the conclusion is that the proof is valid but could benefit from a more detailed step-by-step approach.
rxh140630
Messages
60
Reaction score
11
Homework Statement
I can't see itex formatting, and if I made a mistake in formatting or not, for the homework statement section, so as to save time and any confusion I will write the question in the solution attempt.
Relevant Equations
none that I know
0<k<1
x<y
x,y \in {[a,b]}
a,b \in {\mathbb R}

Question: is yk + (1-k)x \in {[a,b]}

My response:

yk + (1-k)y = y

Since x&lt;y, yk + (1-k)x &lt; y

xk + (1-k)x = x

Since y&gt;x, yk + (1-k)x &gt; x

Therefore x &lt; yk + (1-k)x &lt; y, so yk + (1-k)x is in the interval [a,b]

Is this considered proven? Did I miss anything?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##yk + (1-k)y =y## makes no sense. This is not true for all values of ##k##. You must also require ##a < b##. Your goal is to show that ##yk + (1-k)x \in [a,b]## and you showed that ##yk + (1-k)x \in [x,y] \subseteq [a,b]## so I guess your attempt does contain the right idea, but the exposition can be better imo.
 
Math_QED said:
##yk + (1-k)y =y## makes no sense. This is not true for all values of ##k##. You must also require ##a < b##. Your goal is to show that ##yk + (1-k)x \in [a,b]## and you showed that ##yk + (1-k)x \in [x,y] \subseteq [a,b]## so I guess your attempt does contain the right idea, but the exposition can be better imo.

Sorry, yes also a<b. I don't understand why yk + (1-k)y = y doesn't make sense? For all values of k s.t 0<k<1, yk + (1-k)y = yk + y -yk = y.
 
rxh140630 said:
Sorry, yes also a<b. I don't understand why yk + (1-k)y = y doesn't make sense? For all values of k s.t 0<k<1, yk + (1-k)y = yk + y -yk = y.

I misread and misquoted sorry. It surely is correct. But that sentence is not necessary for your proof?
 
Perhaps not, just wanted to make sure that it's correct, regardless of elegance.
 
Your proof is valid. I would just encourage you to make it a little more step-by-step, like this:
Since x < y and k > 0, ##xk + (1-k)y < yk + (1-k)y = y < b##.
 
  • Like
Likes rxh140630 and SammyS

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K