Proving Triangle Inequality for d(x,A) & d(y,A)

Somefantastik
Messages
226
Reaction score
0
Hey folks, can someone quickly check my algebra?

Given:

d(x,A) \leq d(x,y) + d(y,A)

To show:

\left|d(x,A) - d(y,A) \right| \leq d(x,y)

Proof:

from given, d(x,A) - d(yA) \leq d(x,y);

and

-d(x,A) + d(y,A) \geq -d(x,y);

\Rightarrow d(y,A) - d(x,A) \geq -d(x,y);

\Rightarrow -d(x,y) \leq d(x,A)-d(y,A) \leq d(x,y);

Therefore

\left|d(x,A) - d(y,A) \right| \leq d(x,y)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your penultimate line doesn't follow.

Instead, split up in the two cases a) d(y,A) less than d(x,A) and b) greater than

For a), we have d(x,A)-d(y,A)=|d(x,A)-d(y,A)|, and hence, your first line of the proof may be written as:
0<= |d(x,A)-d(y,A)|<d(x,y)

you can manage b) on your own
 
d(y,A) - d(x,A) \geq -d(x,y);

Does not imply

-d(x,y) \leq -(-d(x,A)+d(y,A))

but the transition between the last two lines of your proof relies on it. You just switched the sides and direction of the inequality (which is fine) and multiplied one side by -1 (not good). If we could do that, it would be a two line proof. ;-)
 
I knew there was something fishy. Thank you for your time y'all, I think I got it.
 
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