You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Proof question. Watch

1. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
Why would you do that?

That's fine. (in fact, this finishes the entire proof as TenofThem alludes to earlier in the thread [and is not what you said in any of your above posts!])

Not fine - you're not allowed to assume x>0 here. You need to show that if x^2>x then x>1 here without any further assumptions about x (including x>0).

[Unless you're doing something odd like showing that if x>0 then (x^2>x <=> x>1) - but I have no idea why you'd be doing that here given that it deviates from the question at hand before coming back to it]
I am doing the odd thing! I first replied to the OP showing what he has done and added the final step if x was positive. And then you get x > 1 which is consistent with x being positive, so therefore if x > 1, x^2 > x.

However the easiest way is obviously starting with x > 1. Basically, I was just finishing off the OPs working.
2. (Original post by metaltron)
I am doing the odd thing! I first replied to the OP showing what he has done and added the final step if x was positive. And then you get x > 1 which is consistent with x being positive, so therefore if x > 1, x^2 > x.
You made mention of dividing by x in your first reply, and made no mention of showing that x>1 => x^2>x, hence my unease given that it could potentially confuse the OP into believing that showing x^2>x => x>1 is enough (regardless of whether that was what you wanted to show or not). I required a lot of extra information before what you were trying to do made any sense to me.

Anyway, I suppose this thread has been done to death.
3. (Original post by Noble.)
You're starting with what you're trying to show, which you shouldn't do.

implies that so

You can do this last step because one of the axioms is that if then

Now using the fact that

There's probably a much quicker and neater way of doing it though.

Yes. My way. There's absolutely nothing wrong with my proof. The "you're starting with what you are trying to show" is nonsense. It doesn't matter whether you start with x>1 or x²>x.
Please don't criticize other peoples work if you don't have a strong argument to do so (rather than, "you shouldnt start with what you are trying to show". Thanks.
4. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
You made mention of dividing by x in your first reply, and made no mention of showing that x>1 => x^2>x, hence my unease given that it could potentially confuse the OP into believing that showing x^2>x => x>1 is enough (regardless of whether that was what you wanted to show or not). I required a lot of extra information before what you were trying to do made any sense to me.

Anyway, I suppose this thread has been done to death.
I don't think it has yet, I was hoping to get to Mark II. I basically just saw this thread in the latest discussions, went in, put in an unhelpful comment and left then basically before you picked me up on it
5. (Original post by Giveme45)
Yes. My way. There's absolutely nothing wrong with my proof. The "you're starting with what you are trying to show" is nonsense. It doesn't matter whether you start with x>1 or x²>x.
Please don't criticize other peoples work if you don't have a strong argument to do so (rather than, "you shouldnt start with what you are trying to show". Thanks.
I never said your way is wrong, it's just bad practice and completely unnecessary to do it that way - that's all.
6. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
You made mention of dividing by x in your first reply, and made no mention of showing that x>1 => x^2>x, hence my unease given that it could potentially confuse the OP into believing that showing x^2>x => x>1 is enough (regardless of whether that was what you wanted to show or not). I required a lot of extra information before what you were trying to do made any sense to me.

Anyway, I suppose this thread has been done to death.
What is wrong with saying:

We know x > 1, so we shall check whether x^2 > x is consistent with this. As x >1 > 0 we can divide by x to get x > 1, which is true. Hence, x^2>x is true when x >1.

This was what I said originally.
7. (Original post by Noble.)
I never said your way is wrong, it's just bad practice and completely unnecessary to do it that way - that's all.
Then please tell me how it is "bad practice"? And how is it unnecessary?

You're just throwing around words. How is your way less unnecessary then mine, if you do additional work which isn't needed to prove such a simple equation? Wouldn't your way be unnecessary then? Wouldn't rather that be considered bad practice?
8. (Original post by metaltron)
What is wrong with saying:

We know x > 1, so we shall check whether x^2 > x is consistent with this. As x >1 > 0 we can divide by x to get x > 1, which is true. Hence, x^2>x is true when x >1.

This was what I said originally.
If you start a proof with what you're trying to show, you're essentially assuming it's true from the get go - there is nothing left to prove because you've assumed it's true by using it.
9. (Original post by Giveme45)
Then please tell me how it is "bad practice"? And how is it unnecessary?

You're just throwing around words. How is your way less unnecessary then mine, if you do additional work which isn't needed to prove such a simple equation? Wouldn't your way be unnecessary then? Wouldn't rather that be considered bad practice?
Because, as I replied to someone else, when you start with what you're trying to show you're assuming it's true - you have nothing left to prove, the mere use of it to do your calculations means you're assuming it's true.
10. (Original post by Noble.)
Because, as I replied to someone else, when you start with what you're trying to show you're assuming it's true - you have nothing left to prove, the mere use of it to do your calculations means you're assuming it's true.
But in this case it is true from the question. We're not trying to prove x^2 > x as this would be wrong. Working the other way round you assume x > 1 and then this leads to x^2 > x.
11. (Original post by Noble.)
Because, as I replied to someone else, when you start with what you're trying to show you're assuming it's true - you have nothing left to prove, the mere use of it to do your calculations means you're assuming it's true.
It seems like you are confusing verification with proof. This discussion is frustrating.

I proved x²>x for x>1. Nothing left to say.
12. (Original post by Giveme45)
It seems like you are confusing verification with proof. This discussion is frustrating.

I proved x²>x for x>1. Nothing left to say.
What are you on about? It's fine to do it for verification, not when you're trying to prove something.

Do you see what's wrong with this proof in showing , you can assume and

gives , so . Expanding gives that is then since squares are always positive, this is true. Hence
13. (Original post by Noble.)
What are you on about? It's fine to do it for verification, not when you're trying to prove something.

Do you see what's wrong with this proof in showing

gives , so . Expanding gives that is then since squares are always positive, this is true. Hence
Firstly, you can't square both sides of an inequality. Another thing that's different is that the question asked:

prove x^2 > x given that x > 1 not just prove x^2>x
14. (Original post by metaltron)
Firstly, you can't square both sides of an inequality. Another thing that's different is that the question asked:

prove x^2 > x given that x > 1 not just prove x^2>x
Sorry, I forgot to add you can assume
15. (Original post by Noble.)
What are you on about? It's fine to do it for verification, not when you're trying to prove something.

Do you see what's wrong with this proof in showing

gives , so . Expanding gives that is then since squares are always positive, this is true. Hence
What I am "on about" is that my proof is a completely valid and legitimate proof. You don't make sense if you say that the proof that "x²>x for x>1" is incorrect if you start with "x²>x" to work your way to "x>1", but is completely fair and valid if you start with "x>1" then landing at "x²>x". We are doing exactly the same thing except for the fact that you start at a different place. Jesus. Stop treating others like kids especially if you have no basis to support your claim that my prove would not be considered one.
16. (Original post by Giveme45)
What I am "on about" is that my proof is a completely valid and legitimate proof. You don't make sense if you say that the proof that "x²>x for x>1" is incorrect if you start with "x²>x" to work your way to "x>1", but is completely fair and valid if you start with "x>1" then landing at "x²>x". We are doing exactly the same thing except for the fact that you start at a different place. Jesus. Stop treating others like kids especially if you have no basis to support your claim that my prove would not be considered one.
I forgot to add you can assume when proving the above. I'm not trying to 'treat you like a kid' I'm trying to work out where you're coming from. So, you think the proof for the AM-GM there is correct, just 'starting in a different place'?
17. (Original post by Noble.)
Sorry, I forgot to add you can assume
I'm late to the party and just being picky but what the OP posted was "x^2 > x for x>1".

That strikes me as an abridged version of a question to be honest - I'd expect a question to read something like "Prove that if x>1, then x^2 > x" or "Prove that x^2 > x for all x such that x > 1".

There'd be far less contention here if the direction of the implication had been made more explicit in the the OP's post
18. (Original post by Giveme45)
What I am "on about" is that my proof is a completely valid and legitimate proof. You don't make sense if you say that the proof that "x²>x for x>1" is incorrect if you start with "x²>x" to work your way to "x>1", but is completely fair and valid if you start with "x>1" then landing at "x²>x". We are doing exactly the same thing except for the fact that you start at a different place. Jesus. Stop treating others like kids especially if you have no basis to support your claim that my prove would not be considered one.
I was starting to give in before you came along!
19. (Original post by davros)
I'm late to the party and just being picky but what the OP posted was "x^2 > x for x>1".

That strikes me as an abridged version of a question to be honest - I'd expect a question to read something like "Prove that if x>1, then x^2 > x" or "Prove that x^2 > x for all x such that x > 1".

There'd be far less contention here if the direction of the implication had been made more explicit in the the OP's post
Yeah, true, but the way I read it was that you're starting from x > 1 and supposed to show x^2 > x from that.
20. (Original post by metaltron)
I was starting to give in before you came along!
Well I'm sorry! If a question states "Show that if P then Q" if you start with Q and show P you've not answered the question. The way I've read the OP is that you're given x>1 (P) and supposed to show x^2 > x (Q). But this is a very good example of why you need to be unambiguous in mathematics.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: March 29, 2013
Today on TSR

...in schools

### Loneliness at uni

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.