Using the generalized triangle inequality

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the generalized triangle inequality, specifically the statement |d(x,y) - d(z,w)| ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w), where d(x,y) is defined as a metric. Participants are exploring the implications of the triangle inequality in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the necessity of considering two cases based on the sign of d(x,y) - d(z,w). There is a focus on understanding why these cases are relevant and how they relate to the absolute value in the problem. Some participants express confusion about the logical steps needed to connect the cases to the generalized triangle inequality.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants attempting to clarify their understanding of the proof structure. Some guidance has been offered regarding the manipulation of inequalities, but there is no explicit consensus on the best approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information they can use or the methods they can apply. There is an emphasis on the need to articulate the proof correctly without assuming steps that have not been established.

scharl4
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Using the generalized triangle inequality, prove |d(x,y) - d(z,w)| ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w)



Homework Equations


d(x,y) is a metric
triangle inequality: d(x,y) ≤ d(x,z) + d(z,y)

The Attempt at a Solution


I know that this needs to be proved with cases: a) d(x,y) - d(z,w) ≥ 0, and b) d(x,y) - d(z,w) < 0. I know that for case a), we have |d(x,y) - d(z,w)| = d(x,y) - d(z,w). The part I am stuck at is that by applying the generalized triangle inequality to this expression, we are supposed to get d(x,y) - d(z,w) ≤ d(x,z) + d(w,y). I just do not understand why. Can anyone help please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
scharl4 said:
I know that this needs to be proved with cases: a) d(x,y) - d(z,w) ≥ 0, and b) d(x,y) - d(z,w) < 0.

Why would this prove anything?? Why do you even think (a) and (b) are true?
 
OK, I used the two cases a) d(x,y) - d(z,w) ≥ 0 and b) d(x,y) - d(z,w) < 0 because of the absolute value in the problem. So for case a) i need to prove d(x,y) - d(z,w) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w) and for case b) i need to prove d(z,w) - d(x,y) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w)
 
scharl4 said:
OK, I used the two cases a) d(x,y) - d(z,w) ≥ 0 and b) d(x,y) - d(z,w) < 0 because of the absolute value in the problem. So for case a) i need to prove d(x,y) - d(z,w) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w) and for case b) i need to prove d(z,w) - d(x,y) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w)

OK, that makes sense.

So you need to prove d(x,y)-d(z,w) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w). What happens if you add d(z,w) to both sides?
 
Ok, so then adding d(z,w) to both sides gives d(x,y) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w) + d(z,w), so d(x,z) + d(z,w) + d(y,w) ≥ d(x,w) + d(w,y) by the triangle inequality, and d(x,w) + d(w,y) ≥ d(x,y) by the triangle inequality, so d(x,y) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w) + d(z,w). Thanks so much, now I understand where this is coming from!
 
scharl4 said:
Ok, so then adding d(z,w) to both sides gives d(x,y) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w) + d(z,w), so d(x,z) + d(z,w) + d(y,w) ≥ d(x,w) + d(w,y) by the triangle inequality, and d(x,w) + d(w,y) ≥ d(x,y) by the triangle inequality, so d(x,y) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,w) + d(z,w). Thanks so much, now I understand where this is coming from!

Note: if you actually write up the proof then you have to reverse it. You can't write: from [itex]d(x,y)-d(z,w) \leq d(x,z) + d(y,w)[/itex] follows [itex]d(x,y)\leq d(x,z)+d(y,w)+d(w,z)[/itex]. This is true, but it isn't helpful since you started with what you wanted to proof.

What you have to do is write: from [itex]d(x,y)\leq d(x,z)+d(y,w)+d(w,z)[/itex] follows [itex]d(x,y)-d(z,w) \leq d(x,z) + d(y,w)[/itex].
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K