MHB Is There an Easier Method to Prove $n^2>n$ for Negative Integers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cbarker1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the inequality \( n^2 > n \) for negative integers. Several examples demonstrate that the inequality holds true for specific negative integers like -1, -2, and -3, confirming the pattern. The proof attempts to establish that \( n^2 - n > 0 \) by transforming it into \( n(n-1) > 0 \), but the reasoning becomes unclear when addressing the conditions for negative integers. Participants suggest that the proof could be simplified by recognizing that for negative \( n \), \( n^2 \) is always positive and greater than \( n \). The conversation concludes with a call for clearer methods to solidify the proof.
cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
Dear Everyone,

Directions: Decide whether the statement is a theorem. If it is a theorem, prove it. if not, give a counterexample.

$$n^2>n$$ for each negative integer n

Examples might work for this inequality

$$n^2-n>0$$

Let n=-1. Then
$$(-1)^2-(-1)>0$$
$$1+1>0$$
$$2>0$$

Let n=-2. Then
$$(-2)^2-(-2)>0$$
$$4+2>0$$
$$6>0$$

Let n=-3. Then
$$(-3)^2-(-3)>0$$
$$9+3>0$$
$$12>0$$

I figure out the pattern of the inequality. So I need to prove it for all cases.

PROOF: Let n be the negative integers. Then,
$$n^2-n>0$$
$$n(n-1)>0$$
$$n>0 \land n>1$$

Here is where I am stuck with my reasoning. Is there better way to prove it?

Thanks
Cbarker1
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
$ n^2 \ge \sqrt{ n^2 } = |n| > n $ if $ n $ is negative.
 
greg1313 said:
$ n^2 \ge \sqrt{ n^2 } = |n| > n $ if $ n $ is negative.

Yes, it is true.

But I think there is an easier method to prove this, right?
So, I will rewrite the statement into a condition statement.

If n is a neg. integer, then $n^2>n$.

Work for this statement and I am stuck in this part upcoming:

Proof: Suppose n is negative integer. Then, $n>0$. Then $n-1>0$. So $n-1>n>0$.

What to do next in this proof?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
3
Replies
105
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top