Proving Inequality for Math Students

  • Thread starter Thread starter phospho
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality that states if \(0 \leq a < b\) and \(0 \leq c < d\), then \(ac < bd\). Participants are exploring the implications of the given conditions and how to approach the proof without assuming the conclusion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand how to start the proof, with some considering specific cases like when \(a\) or \(c\) equals zero. Others are questioning how to apply known rules about inequalities and multiplication, particularly in the context of multiple inequalities.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the proof strategy, with hints being provided to guide participants towards proving the necessary inequalities. Some participants express confusion about how to proceed, particularly regarding the validity of manipulating inequalities when multiple conditions are present.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of not assuming the conclusion of the inequality they are trying to prove. There is also a discussion about the rules of multiplying inequalities and whether certain manipulations are valid in this context.

phospho
Messages
250
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove

If ## 0 \leq a < b ## and ## 0 \leq c < d ## then ## ac < bd ##

The Attempt at a Solution



not sure how to even start on this,

was thinking if a = 0 or c = 0, then ac = 0, but bd > 0 (which is given) so bd > ac
however this seems like I'm cheating because they give you bd > ac, so I don't think it's valid
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They don't give you ac < bd, that is what you must show.

What you have done so far is correct but you still have to show it is true when 0 < a, 0 < c.

Hint: you were probably given the rule that, for 0 < c, a < b → ac < bc. Use it.
 
verty said:
They don't give you ac < bd, that is what you must show.

What you have done so far is correct but you still have to show it is true when 0 < a, 0 < c.

Hint: you were probably given the rule that, for 0 < c, a < b → ac < bc. Use it.

Yes we were given that, but I couldn't proceed how to use it. I used ac < bd to get to where I am right now.
 
phospho said:
I used ac < bd to get to where I am right now.

no, you can't use ac < bd !

use verty's :smile: hint

(second hint: if you could prove ac < bc, what would you still need to get ac < bd ? :wink:)
 
I'm sorry, I'm trying but I just don't see how to proceed.

For the proof of c>0 and a<b prove ac<bc it was very simple, all I had to use was (b-a).c > 0, but when there are two inequality signs I don't know how to deal with it. Is multiplying by b or d to each of the inequalities allowed? For instance, if 0<=a<b and 0 <=c<d is it true that 0<=bc < bd?
 
hi phospho! :smile:
tiny-tim said:
(second hint: if you could prove ac < bc, what would you still need to get ac < bd ? :wink:)

phospho said:
… is it true that 0<=bc < bd?

that's right! … if you can prove ac < bc and bc < bd,

then obviously you have ac < bc < bd, ie ac < bd

sooo … now prove ac < bc and bc < bd (separately) :wink:
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K