Is Indirect Proof Easier for Proving Inequality Involving Real Numbers?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving an inequality involving real numbers, specifically the statement that if \(3x^{4}+1 \leq x^{7}+x^{3}\), then \(x > 0\). The subject area includes concepts from algebra and inequalities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the validity of assumptions made regarding the inequality and discuss the potential for using indirect proof methods, such as proving the contrapositive.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of different approaches to the problem, with some participants suggesting that proving the contrapositive may be more straightforward than a direct proof. Guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of the inequality and the implications of assuming values for \(x\).

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about their understanding of the material and the examples provided in the textbook, indicating a potential gap in clarity or instructional effectiveness.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
14K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K