1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Prove 2 sqrt(x) > 3 - (1/x) for x > 1

Tags:
  1. Feb 4, 2017 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    For ##x> 1##, prove that $$2\sqrt{x} > 3 - \frac 1 x$$

    2. Relevant equations
    Definition of increasing function

    3. The attempt at a solution
    Let ##f(x) = 2\sqrt{x} + \frac 1 x## defined on domain ##[1, \infty)##. Function is increasing if ## f'(x) > 0## on some interval ##I##. This leads to ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}} - \frac{1}{x^2} > 0##. So we have ## \frac{1}{\sqrt{x}} > \frac{1}{x^2} ##. Since ## x \in [1, \infty)##, we can flip this ## \sqrt{x} < x^2 ##. Therefore, ##x < x^4##. Hence ##x (x^3-1) > 0##. ##\therefore x(x-1)(x^2+x+1) > 0##. Since ## x > 0 ## and ##(x^2+x+1) > 0## if ## x \in [1, \infty)##, we have ## x > 1##. So ##f(x)## is increasing on ##(1,\infty)##. Its also known that ##f(1) = 3##. How do I proceed from here on ?

    Thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 4, 2017 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I would say you are done.

    You showed equality for x=3 and that the difference between the two sides is strictly increasing for x>1.

    You can use the mean value theorem to make the last step more formal.
     
  4. Feb 4, 2017 #3

    Ray Vickson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Your mode of reasoning is unsound. You want to know whether ##f(x)## is increasing on ##(1,\infty)##. So you ultimately want to know if ##\sqrt{x} < x^2## on ##(1,\infty)##. That is true if you can show that ##\sqrt{1} \leq 1^2## and ##(\sqrt{x})' < (x^2)'## on ##(1,\infty)##.

    Throughout, you have been essentially assuming what you want to prove and then showing at the end that this implies ##x > 1##. In other words, if A = "##x > 1##" and B = "##f(x)## is increasing", you have shown that ##B \Rightarrow A##, but what what is needed is ##A \Rightarrow B##. Logically there is a real difference.
     
  5. Feb 4, 2017 #4

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Huh?

    He calculated the derivative and showed that it is positive for x>1 in a direct way (although not with the best possible phrasing). What is unsound about that?
     
  6. Feb 4, 2017 #5
    Hello Ray, may be the initial statement of the problem is confusing. But I think I proved that ##f(x)## is increasing on ##(1,\infty)## without any assumptions.
    mfb, I don't see how intermediate value theorem would be useful here. To reach eventual conclusion, I have to prove that ##\forall~x \in (1,\infty), f(x) > f(1)##. I tried to assume the negation, ##f(x) \leqslant f(1)##. I reached the contradiction for ##f(x) = f(1)##. I am trying how to get contradiction for ##f(x) < f(1)##. Would this be correct approach ?
     
  7. Feb 4, 2017 #6

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    It tells you that, for every x0>1 there is a value 1<x<x0 where f'(x)*...=..., and you can use this to show that f(x0)>3.
     
  8. Feb 4, 2017 #7
    You have used derivative in the statement. Intermediate value theorem does not talk about any derivatives.
     
  9. Feb 4, 2017 #8

    Ray Vickson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No, you showed that if ##f(x)## is increasing then ##x > 1##. In your case the steps are almost reversible, so doing what you did is harmless, but fundamentally it is a mode of demonstration that you should try to avoid. In your case proving "A implies B" and "B implies A" are essentially reversed arguments of each other, and that is why you can get away with it here. However, logically speaking, "A implies B" and "B implies A" are very different and are sometimes not the same at all: you can have one without the other in some cases.

    Sometimes when we solve a problem we essentially do what you did (at least in the exploratory phase); that is, we sometimes start with what we are trying to prove and then work backwards towards the "hypothesis". If we do that it is to gain insight, etc. However, when we write up the final solution we should throw away all those sheets of paper and re-write the argument in the proper fashion. Some instructors would accept what you did, while others would mark it incorrect. Better to be safe.
     
  10. Feb 4, 2017 #9
    Ray, ok, I will be careful about my arguments.
     
  11. Feb 4, 2017 #10

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I said mean value theorem, not intermediate value theorem.
     
  12. Feb 4, 2017 #11
    Ok, I need to prove that ##\forall~x \in (1, \infty), f(x) > f(1)##. We let ## x \in (1, \infty)## be arbitrary. Now consider the interval ##[1, x]##. ##f(x)## is continuous on ##[1,x]## and differentiable on ##(1,x)##. So there is ##c \in (1,x)## such that ## f'(c) = \frac{f(x)-f(1)}{x-1}##. Since ##c >1##, and ##f(x)## is increasing on ##(1,\infty)##, we have ##f'(c) > 0##. Since ##x > 1##, we have ##f(x) >f(1)##. Hence ##2\sqrt{x} + \frac 1 x > 3##, or equivalently, ##2\sqrt{x} > 3 - \frac 1 x##. Since ##x## is arbitrary, this is true for all ##x > 1##. I hope the arguments are correct now.
     
  13. Feb 4, 2017 #12

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Correct.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Prove 2 sqrt(x) > 3 - (1/x) for x > 1
Loading...