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
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?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
2
Replies
78
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top