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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top