You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Proof with inequality Watch

1. Show that:

for all positive integers

My proof:

Following the conditions we have that:

Since we have that:

We can use that in our original inequality:

Finally:

My questions is if I can use to cancel out the 2 on the LHS and make the RHS positive.

Thanks.
2. (Original post by chrypton)
Show that:

for all positive integers

My proof:

Following the conditions we have that:

Since we have that:

We can use that in our original inequality:

Finally:

My questions is if I can use to cancel out the 2 on the LHS and make the RHS positive.

Thanks.
No you can't because when you multiply an inequality by a negative number, the inequality sign changes.

.

At this point, note that Root-Mean Square Arithmetic mean.

2 x 10 > -1 x 30 (which it does)

and cancel using 2 > -1

you get 10 > 30
4. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
No you can't because when you multiply an inequality by a negative number, the inequality sign changes.
Ah, yes of course. Didn't think of that.
5. (Original post by chrypton)
Ah, yes of course. Didn't think of that.
Try something like
6. (Original post by chrypton)
Ah, yes of course. Didn't think of that.
(Original post by Serano)
Try something like
Read my edited first post, I'm fairly sure that's the easiest/quickest way (i.e. AM-QM inequality)
7. (Original post by Serano)
Try something like
That's very elegant! Thanks
8. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
No you can't because when you multiply an inequality by a negative number, the inequality sign changes.

.

At this point, note that Root-Mean Square Arithmetic mean.
Ok, but you can't start out with what you are going to show?
9. (Original post by chrypton)
Ok, but you can't start out with what you are going to show?
Of course you can. All I did was rearrange it to be in a form that definitely is true, and since that is true (the AM-QM bit), what you started with must be true. The implication goes both ways in this case.
10. (Original post by chrypton)
Ok, but you can't start out with what you are going to show?
In general, you are right. You should work from 'given' towards 'to prove'.

Because Farhan's method uses double-implication signs <=> at all stages his proof's OK.
11. Thank you!

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: December 4, 2010
Today on TSR

### Cambridge interview invitations

Has yours come through yet?

### Official Oxford interview invite list

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.