Help with a few questions about spivak calculus

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mendem03
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Spivak
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around several mathematical proofs and questions related to inequalities and properties of real numbers, as presented in Spivak's calculus. Participants explore the validity of certain proofs and the assumptions underlying them.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof that if \( a < b \), then \( -b < -a \), but another participant challenges the transition from \( a-b < 0 \) to \( b-a > 0 \), suggesting it requires an assumption that is not yet proven.
  • A second proof is proposed that if \( a < b \) and \( c < 0 \), then \( ab > bc \), but the reasoning is questioned regarding the assumptions made in the proof.
  • A third proof claims that if \( a > 1 \), then \( a^2 > a \), but the necessity of proving that \( 1 > 0 \) before this proof is highlighted as a potential issue.
  • Another participant discusses the property of trichotomy in real numbers and suggests a method to prove \( 1 > 0 \) by assuming its negation and deriving a contradiction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proofs presented, particularly regarding the assumptions made in each case. There is no consensus on the correctness of the proofs or the necessity of proving certain inequalities before proceeding.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need for foundational proofs, such as proving \( 1 > 0 \), before relying on certain inequalities, indicating a dependence on axioms and definitions that may not have been established in the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students studying real analysis or those interested in the foundations of calculus and mathematical proofs, particularly in understanding the assumptions and logical steps involved in proving inequalities.

mendem03
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Question
if a < b, then -b < -a

proof
if a < b then a-b<0 and b-a>0
so a-b<0<b-a
so -b<-a

Question
if a<b & c<0, then ab>bc

proof
if ac<ab then ab>bc
then ac<ab>bc
then ac>bc

Question
if a>1 then a^2>a

proof
a*a > 1*a
lemma 1: a*a = a^2
(a*a)*a^-1 = a^2 * a^-1
a*(a*a^-1) = a
a * 1 = a
a = a
so a*a>1*a
a^2>a
 
Physics news on Phys.org
in the first proof,

when you go from a-b&lt;0 to b-a&gt;0 , you have to do this first

a-b&lt;0 \Rightarrow \; -(b-a)&lt;0 \;

but to go from here to b-a&gt;0, you have to assume the thing which you set out to prove.

in the last proof, when you go from \; a&gt;1\; to a*a &gt; 1*a, you are
assuming that 1&gt;0. have you proved it before ?
 
Thank you for replying and helping me out
I have not proven 1 greater than 0 before
but can you give me a pointer on how to prove that or another way of doing this proof
 
order axioms say that between two real numbers a and b , three relations are possible.
a>b or a=b or a<b. this is called property of trichotomy. to prove 1>0, you assume negation, assume 1\ngtr 0. since one of the three possibilities between 1 and 0 is true and we have assumed 1\ngtr 0 , it must be true that
1=0\;\mbox{or}\;1&lt;0 . since the field axioms explicitly say that
1\neq 0 , it must be true that 1&lt;0 now work with axioms to find a contradiction...

are you studying analysis on your own or you are taking class ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K