Is this statement for proving inequalities true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physicist97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequalities
Physicist97
Messages
31
Reaction score
4
Hello! What I'm wondering is if you want to prove an inequality, let's say ##a<b## and you already know that ##a>c## is true. If you are able to prove that ##c<b## is true, would that go on to imply that ##a<b## is true also? If this is correct, is it known as a theorem?

Thank you!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No. Can you find a counterexample?
 
  • Like
Likes Physicist97
Physicist97 said:
Hello! What I'm wondering is if you want to prove an inequality, let's say ##a<b## and you already know that ##a>c## is true. If you are able to prove that ##c<b## is true, would that go on to imply that ##a<b## is true also? If this is correct, is it known as a theorem?

Thank you!

In other words:

##c < a## and ##c < b## implies ##a < b##

There's something not right there.
 
  • Like
Likes Physicist97
Mhmm, yea I see where I went wrong haha. It was a pretty silly mistake, too :). Thank you everyone.
 
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.
Back
Top