Newtime
- 347
- 0
...but I feel like I did something wrong. Also, this was a problem in my Analysis book, hence my posting it here, although it doesn't explicitly deal with analysis.
Prove that root(ab)=(a+b)/2 implies a=b. Assume 0\leqa\leqb. To prove the converse is true was another problem and was easy but anyway here's my work:
Proof.
Assume the contrary; that given root(ab)=(a+b)/2, a\neqb.
By the first multiplicative identity, 2*root(ab)=(a+b).
Squaring both sides: 4ab=a2+2ab+b2
By the first multiplicative identity and algebra, a2-2ab+b2=0.
Factor: (a-b)(a-b)=0.
Since a\neqb by assumptions, a-b\neq0 thus we can divide both sides by a-b: (a-b)=0. This implies a=b, which contradicts the original assumptions. Thus root(ab)=(a+b)/2 implies a=b.
qed
So is this correct? If not, where did I go wrong? I just have this feeling that it's a little...off...somewhere but I don't know how or where. Thanks in advance for the help, this has been bothering me for a bit now.
Prove that root(ab)=(a+b)/2 implies a=b. Assume 0\leqa\leqb. To prove the converse is true was another problem and was easy but anyway here's my work:
Proof.
Assume the contrary; that given root(ab)=(a+b)/2, a\neqb.
By the first multiplicative identity, 2*root(ab)=(a+b).
Squaring both sides: 4ab=a2+2ab+b2
By the first multiplicative identity and algebra, a2-2ab+b2=0.
Factor: (a-b)(a-b)=0.
Since a\neqb by assumptions, a-b\neq0 thus we can divide both sides by a-b: (a-b)=0. This implies a=b, which contradicts the original assumptions. Thus root(ab)=(a+b)/2 implies a=b.
qed
So is this correct? If not, where did I go wrong? I just have this feeling that it's a little...off...somewhere but I don't know how or where. Thanks in advance for the help, this has been bothering me for a bit now.