Proving f(x)>0 if x>0 with Function Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that if f is a non-zero function satisfying the properties f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y) and f(xy)=f(x)f(y), then f(x) must be greater than zero for all x greater than zero. Participants have established that f(x)=x for rational x and that f is an odd function. The proof involves considering irrational numbers and leveraging the properties of f to demonstrate contradictions when assuming f(x) is not positive.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of functional equations, specifically Cauchy's functional equation.
  • Familiarity with properties of odd functions.
  • Knowledge of rational and irrational numbers.
  • Basic algebraic manipulation and proof techniques.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore Cauchy's functional equation and its implications in depth.
  • Study the properties of odd functions and their applications in proofs.
  • Investigate the behavior of functions over rational and irrational domains.
  • Learn about proving inequalities in functional equations.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying functional equations, and anyone interested in advanced algebraic proofs will benefit from this discussion.

jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50

Homework Statement



Prove that if [itex]f[/itex] is the function which is not always zero, that satisfies [itex]f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)[/itex] and [itex]f(xy)=f(x)f(y)[/itex], we have that [itex]f(x)>0[/itex] if [itex]x>0[/itex]

Homework Equations



So far I've managed to prove that [itex]f(x)=x[/itex] if [itex]x \in \mathbb{Q}[/itex] and that [itex]f[/itex] must be odd.

The Attempt at a Solution



Suppose not, then if [itex]x > 0[/itex] and irrational we have that [itex]f(-x) > 0 > f(x)[/itex]. Since any rational number [itex]b > 0[/itex] can be expressed as the sum of two irrational numbers - [itex]x + (b-x)[/itex] for instance - we have that [itex]b = x + y > 0[/itex] where [itex]x,y[/itex] are irrational. This implies that,

[itex]b = f(b) = f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) > 0[/itex]

Clearly, both [itex]x,y[/itex] cannot be negative since this would imply that [itex]x+y < 0[/itex] a contradiction. We also have [itex]x,y[/itex] cannot both be positive since this would imply that [itex]f(x)+f(y)<0[/itex] another contradiction.

I'm not positive that any of this is correct (probably isn't) and I would appreciate any corrections along with suggestions on how to complete the proof. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi jgens! :smile:

Hints: what is f(√x)?

If f(y) = 0, what is f(x/y)?
 
I can't really follow your logic in 3). You first assume we have one positive irrational number x which is a counterexample to the problem statement. You then choose an arbitrary positive rational number b, and consider the irrational number y=b-x (about which you know very little). You say that x, y can't both be negative which is correct (since b is positive and also since by definition x > 0 so that can't be negative), but I don't see why we couldn't have y < 0 < x. x+y could still be positive if the absolute value of x is greater than that of y, and while f(x) < 0 you don't necessarily know that f(y) < 0 (remember you only assumed that there was a contradiction at one point x, not at all irrational points).

I think you're over complicating the problem slightly. If x > 0 we can write it as [itex]x = a^2[/itex] for some a > 0. We then have:
[tex]f(x) = f(aa) = f(a)^2[/tex]
Also note that if [itex]a \not = 0[/itex] then a has a multiplicative inverse so:
[tex]1 = f(1) = f(a)f(1/a)[/tex]
Try to see if you can show f(x) > 0 from this. You don't need a complete formula for f(x).
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K