Is Indirect Proof Easier for Proving Inequality Involving Real Numbers?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
7 replies · 3K views
tehdiddulator
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let x [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ
Prove that if 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1≤x[itex]^{7}[/itex]+x[itex]^{3}[/itex], then x > 0

Homework Equations



None

The Attempt at a Solution


Assume
3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1≤x[itex]^{7}[/itex]+x[itex]^{3}[/itex]
then 0 ≤ -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]-1≤x[itex]^{7}[/itex]+x[itex]^{3}[/itex]
Then I assumed that each was greater than or equal to 0, which I thought gave the desired result. No examples in the book to really guide me...any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tehdiddulator said:
0 ≤ -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]-1

That can't be right, no matter what value x has.



You might want to think it like this instead: If x≤0, then x7+x3 is always smaller than 1+3x4. Why is this?
 
Would it be because both powers of x are odd, which will mean it is always negative? So proving the contapositive would be an easier route than a direct proof?
 
tehdiddulator said:
Would it be because both powers of x are odd, which will mean it is always negative?
To be clearer, say what "it" refers to.
tehdiddulator said:
So proving the contapositive would be an easier route than a direct proof?
 
Still not entirely sure if I did it correctly...this class is giving me such a headache. Not sure if its the book or just my lack of understanding but some of these topics covered are going straight over my head...



Let x[itex]\in[/itex]ℝ. If 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1 ≤ x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex], then x > 0.
Proof
Contrapositive.
If x≤ 0, then 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1> x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex]
Assume x ≤ 0 for x [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ.
Since for all values of x less than or equal to zero would produce a true statement.
Since 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1 < 0 for x ≤ 0 and 0 > x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex] for x ≤ 0.


Would this suffice as a proof? It seems like I don't know the tools to know how to get there, it always seems obvious when I look at the answer key, but have really no idea how to get there.
 
Oh...and I would just like to point out how the book does this type of problem. Seems incredibly non-intuitive to me.

Let x [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ. If x[itex]^{5}[/itex] -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+2x[itex]^{3}[/itex]-x[itex]^{2}[/itex] +4x - 1 ≥ 0, then x ≥ 0.
Proof.
Assume that x < 0. Then x[itex]^{5}[/itex] < 0, 2x[itex]^{3}[/itex] < 0, and 4x < 0. In addition, -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex] < 0 and -x[itex]^{2}[/itex] < 0.

Thus x[itex]^{5}[/itex] -3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+2x[itex]^{3}[/itex]-x[itex]^{2}[/itex] +4x - 1 < 0 - 1 < 0.
as desired.

This is what I have to go on for an example...there has got to be a better way to do these proofs. I'm just regurgitating the same problem, except with different numbers and yet I have no idea what I'm doing.
 
tehdiddulator said:
Still not entirely sure if I did it correctly...this class is giving me such a headache. Not sure if its the book or just my lack of understanding but some of these topics covered are going straight over my head...
Let x[itex]\in[/itex]ℝ. If 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1 ≤ x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex], then x > 0.
Proof
Contrapositive.
If x≤ 0, then 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1> x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex]
Assume x ≤ 0 for x [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ.
Since for all values of x less than or equal to zero would produce a true statement.
You can omit the sentence above. Instead, show using inequalities why this is so.

For any real x, 3x4 + 1 ≥ 1 > 0
For any x ≤ 0, x7 ≤ 0 and x3 ≤ 0, hence x7 +x3 ≤ 0
Then for any x ≤ 0, 3x4 + 1 > x7 +x3.
tehdiddulator said:
Since 3x[itex]^{4}[/itex]+1 < 0 for x ≤ 0 and 0 > x[itex]^{7}[/itex] + x[itex]^{3}[/itex] for x ≤ 0.

This shows that the contrapositive is a true statement, and the contrapositive is equivalent to the original statement, so it is true as well.Would this suffice as a proof? It seems like I don't know the tools to know how to get there, it always seems obvious when I look at the answer key, but have really no idea how to get there.
 
tehdiddulator said:
Would it be because both powers of x are odd, which will mean it is always negative? So proving the contapositive would be an easier route than a direct proof?

Yes I think this is one of the most obvious cases where indirect proof is easier than direct proof. For a direct proof, you'd need to solve the equation 1+3x4-x3-x7=0.