Proving Inequalities: Tips and Strategies for Success

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kernul
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving various properties of inequalities, specifically how they behave under addition and multiplication with constants. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding the definitions of inequalities rather than relying on case-by-case analysis. A key point raised is the validity of algebraic manipulations, particularly when canceling terms, which can lead to circular reasoning if not handled correctly. The conversation also highlights the necessity of establishing clear logical steps to avoid confusion in proofs. Overall, the exchange enhances comprehension of inequalities and their proofs in mathematical contexts.
Kernul
Messages
211
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement


Prove the following facts about inequalities. [In each problem you will have to consider several
cases separately, e.g. ##a > 0## and ##a = 0##.]
(a) If ##a \leq b##, then ##a + c \leq b + c##.
(b) If ##a \geq b##, then ##a + c \geq b + c##.
(c) If ##a \leq b## and ##c \geq 0##, then ##ac \leq bc##.
(d) If ##a \leq b## and ##c \leq 0##, then ##ac \geq bc##.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


So, I've tried to prove the first one (the second is basically the first one but with inequalities inverted) the following way:
If ##a > 0, b > 0## or ##a < 0, b < 0## (do I really have to say that ##b> 0## too?)
##a \leq b \implies a + c \leq b + c##
##a + (c + (-c)) \leq b + (c + (-c))##
##(a + c) + (-c) \leq (b + c) + (-c)##
##a + c \leq b + c##
If ##a = 0, b > 0##
##0 \leq b \implies c \leq b + c##
##(c + (-c)) \leq b + (c + (-c))##
##c + (-c) \leq (b + c) + (-c)##
##c \leq b + c##
So it's proved, right?
Now, going to (c), we have this ##c \geq 0## that stops me from using ##c^{-1}## to prove them because it's not ##c > 0##.
Which other way can I prove the last two?

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't notice the inequalities were wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kernul said:

Homework Statement


Prove the following facts about inequalities. [In each problem you will have to consider several
cases separately, e.g. ##a > 0## and ##a = 0##.]
(a) If ##a <= b##, then ##a + c <= b + c##.
(b) If ##a >= b##, then ##a + c >= b + c##.
(c) If ##a <= b## and ##c >= 0##, then ##ac <= bc##.
(d) If ##a <= b## and ##c <= 0##, then ##ac >= bc##.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


So, I've tried to prove the first one (the second is basically the first one but with inequalities inverted) the following way:
If ##a > 0, b > 0## or ##a < 0, b < 0## (do I really have to say that ##b> 0## too?)
##a <= b \implies a + c <= b + c##
##a + (c + (-c)) <= b + (c + (-c))##
##(a + c) + (-c) <= (b + c) + (-c)##
##a + c <= b + c##
If ##a = 0, b > 0##
##0 <= b \implies c <= b + c##
##(c + (-c)) <= b + (c + (-c))##
##c + (-c) <= (b + c) + (-c)##
##c <= b + c##
So it's proved, right?
Now, going to (c), we have this ##c >= 0## that stops me from using ##c^{-1}## to prove them because it's not ##c > 0##.
Which other way can I prove the last two?

Looking at several cases for each part is a waste of time; in every part there is no need at all for "cases". Just use an appropriate definition of "≤" or "≥".
 
Ray Vickson said:
Looking at several cases for each part is a waste of time; in every part there is no need at all for "cases". Just use an appropriate definition of "≤" or "≥".
An appropriate definition of ##\leq## and ##\geq##? Wouldn't that be:
##a \leq b## means ##a < b## or ## a = b##
##a \geq b## means ##a > b## or ## a = b##
 
Kernul said:
An appropriate definition of ##\leq## and ##\geq##? Wouldn't that be:
##a \leq b## means ##a < b## or ## a = b##
##a \geq b## means ##a > b## or ## a = b##

What does ##a < b## mean? What is a very simple way to test if ##a < b##?

Anyway, I did not claim that what you are doing is wrong; I am just saying it is not the fastest way.

To deal with your original question: in your argument you started with ##a \leq b##, then got ##(a+c) + (-c) \leq (b+c) + (-c)##, then canceled the "##(-c)##' on both sides to end up with ##a+c \leq b+c##. However, that last step is invalid: it basically assumes what you are trying to prove, because if you set ##A = a+c## and ##B = b+c## you are going from ##A -c \leq B-c ## to ##A \leq B##---but you have not proved that yet.
 
Last edited:
Ray Vickson said:
What does ##a < b## mean? What is a very simple way to test if ##a < b##?
##a < b## means that ##a## is a number smaller than ##b##.
To see if ##b - a## is still a positive number? If it's negative it means that actually ##a > b##.
 
Kernul said:
##a < b## means that ##a## is a number smaller than ##b##.
To see if ##b - a## is still a positive number? If it's negative it means that actually ##a > b##.

Now you are getting it (in your second sentence above).
 
Ray Vickson said:
What does ##a < b## mean? What is a very simple way to test if ##a < b##?

Anyway, I did not claim that what you are doing is wrong; I am just saying it is not the fastest way.

To deal with your original question: in your argument you started with ##a \leq b##, then got ##(a+c) + (-c) \leq (b+c) + (-c)##, then canceled the "##(-c)##' on both sides to end up with ##a+c \leq b+c##. However, that last step is invalid: it basically assumes what you are trying to prove, because if you set ##A = a+c## and ##B = b+c## you are going from ##A -c \leq B-c ## to ##A \leq B##---but you have not proved that yet.
Oh right. I can't think of any way to proceed from that part right now.

Ray Vickson said:
Now you are getting it (in your second sentence above).
So I should simply see if ##(b + c) - (a + c) > 0##?
 
Kernul said:
Oh right. I can't think of any way to proceed from that part right now.So I should simply see if ##(b + c) - (a + c) > 0##?

That is the way I would do it (although I would use "##\geq##" instead of "##>##").
 
Ray Vickson said:
That is the way I would do it (although I would use "##\geq##" instead of "##>##").
Oh yes.
Doing like that I would end up with ##b + c - a - c \geq 0## and so ##b - a \geq 0##. But does this really prove what I was trying to prove? Isn't this the opposite way since I started directly with ##a + c \leq b + c##, which was what I had to end up while proving?
 
  • #10
Kernul said:
Oh yes.
Doing like that I would end up with ##b + c - a - c \geq 0## and so ##b - a \geq 0##. But does this really prove what I was trying to prove? Isn't this the opposite way since I started directly with ##a + c \leq b + c##, which was what I had to end up while proving?

No: you assume ##a \leq b##, which means that ##b-a \geq 0##. However, ##(b+c) - (a+c) = b-a,## so we have ##(b+c) -(a+c) \geq 0##, which means (by definition) that ##b+c \geq a+c##. No circular arguments are involved; just elementary algebra.
 
  • Like
Likes Kernul
  • #11
Ray Vickson said:
No: you assume ##a \leq b##, which means that ##b-a \geq 0##. However, ##(b+c) - (a+c) = b-a,## so we have ##(b+c) -(a+c) \geq 0##, which means (by definition) that ##b+c \geq a+c##. No circular arguments are involved; just elementary algebra.
Oh, now I get it.
Thank you very much.
 
Back
Top