Verification of simple inequality proof

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

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving the inequality a < (a+b)/2 < b given that a < b. Participants are discussing the validity of different proof approaches and the logical implications of the steps taken.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are analyzing the original poster's proof method, questioning whether it correctly follows the intended direction of the proof. Some suggest that the proof appears to be constructed in reverse, while others clarify the implications of the steps taken.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on the proof structure and logical flow. There is no explicit consensus on the validity of the original proof, but several insights into the nature of the proof process have been shared.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of proving inequalities and the necessity of demonstrating that steps can be logically reversed. The original poster's proof method is being scrutinized for its adherence to the problem's requirements.

GeoMike
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
The question given is:
If a < b, prove that a < (a+b)/2 < b

The book had a different proof than the one I came up with. I understand the book's proof, I just want to know if my proof is also ok.

I did the following:

a < (a+b)/2 < b
2a < a+b < 2b
a < b < 2b-a
a-b < 0 < b-a

Since it was given that a < b, a-b must be less than 0, and b-a must be greater than zero, so the inequality a < (a+b)/2 < b is true if a < b.

Is this ok?

Thanks,
-GeoMike-
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks a bit like you did the proof in reverse. It seems that you started with a<(a+b)/2<b and then got to a<b rather than starting with a<b and proving a<(a+b)/2<b like the problem seems to want.
 
really you should show the direction of the implications you're using, so what you mean is actually

[tex]a<(a+b)/2<b \Longleftarrow 2a<(a+b)<2b \Longleftarrow a<b<2b-a \Longleftarrow a-b<0<b-a \Longleftarrow a<b,[/tex]

and not the other way. It doesn't matter much here since all the inequalities there are equivalent (so the implications work both ways, ie. in fact [itex]a<b \Longleftrightarrow a<(a+b)/2<b[/itex]).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Proof by reverse is great, but you have to show that the steps can logically be reversed at the end
 
That's sometimes called "synthetic proof". It's often used to prove trig identitities. Start with what you want to prove and work back to an obviously true statement. It's valid as long as every stepe is reversible,.
 
Thank you for the replies! :smile:

-GeoMike-
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K