Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
Like Tree2Thanks

Math Help - equivalence

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    1

    equivalence

    Are the three inequalities;

    1) 1>0

    2) a>0 => (1/a)>0

    3) ac>bc & c>0 => a>b

    equivalent??

    I can prove that (1) implies (2) and that (2) implies (3) ,but i cannot prove that (3) implies (1)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11,830
    Thanks
    1602

    Re: equivalence

    Well 1 > 0 is true no matter what.

    The second inequation is false for all values of a, as reciprocating REVERSES the direction of the inequality sign (so > becomes < ).

    The third is fine because you can divide both sides by c, and since c is positive that doesn't change the inequality sign.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    1

    Re: equivalence

    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    Well 1 > 0 is true no matter what.

    The second inequation is false for all values of a, as reciprocating REVERSES the direction of the inequality sign (so > becomes < ).

    The third is fine because you can divide both sides by c, and since c is positive that doesn't change the inequality sign.
    .

    I would like to see a reference from ANY book stating that : for any real,a : a>o => (1/a)>0 is false

    You confuse the above inequality with the following inequality:

    0<a<b => 0<(1/b)< (1/a).

    Note :even in this inequality (1/a) and (1/b) remain bigger than zero.

    But my problem is ,if the three inqualities are equivalent.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11,830
    Thanks
    1602

    Re: equivalence

    You are correct, I was very tired when I read and wrote what I did. I was actually referring to $\displaystyle \begin{align*} a > b \implies \frac{1}{a} < \frac{1}{b} \end{align*}$
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Super Member
    Joined
    Feb 2014
    From
    United States
    Posts
    821
    Thanks
    412

    Re: equivalence

    Quote Originally Posted by psolaki View Post
    Are the three inequalities;

    1) 1>0

    2) a>0 => (1/a)>0

    3) ac>bc & c>0 => a>b

    equivalent??

    I can prove that (1) implies (2) and that (2) implies (3) ,but i cannot prove that (3) implies (1)
    The problem with trying to help is that we have no clue what other premises you are permitted to use in proofs.

    For example

    $a > 0 \implies (1/a) > 0.$ Given.

    $a * (1/a) = 1.$ By definition of (1/a).

    $x > 0\ and\ y > z \implies xy > xz.$ Is that rule about multiplication by a positive allowed, but 1 > 0 is not allowed?

    $\therefore a * (1/a) > a * 0.$

    $But\ a * 0 = 0.$ Is that allowed?

    $THUS,\ 1 > 0.$

    I have no idea whether that proof is valid under the premises that you are permitted to use. My basic problem is that if we must prove 1 > 0, what else must we prove.

    In any case, using some premises that seem rather basic, I can prove 1 from 2 and 2 from 1 and from 2 to 3. I too have trouble with reversing from 3.
    Thanks from topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    1

    Re: equivalence

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
    The problem with trying to help is that we have no clue what other premises you are permitted to use in proofs.

    For example

    $a > 0 \implies (1/a) > 0.$ Given.

    $a * (1/a) = 1.$ By definition of (1/a).

    $x > 0\ and\ y > z \implies xy > xz.$ Is that rule about multiplication by a positive allowed, but 1 > 0 is not allowed?

    $\therefore a * (1/a) > a * 0.$

    $But\ a * 0 = 0.$ Is that allowed?

    $THUS,\ 1 > 0.$

    I have no idea whether that proof is valid under the premises that you are permitted to use. My basic problem is that if we must prove 1 > 0, what else must we prove.

    In any case, using some premises that seem rather basic, I can prove 1 from 2 and 2 from 1 and from 2 to 3. I too have trouble with reversing from 3.
    The medium is the real Nos ,so any property or theorem of the real Nos can be used.

    Now to prove the equivalence we have to prove the following circle:

    (1)=>(2)=>(3)=>(1),or any other proving circle for that matter will do.

    As i said ican prove (1)=>(2)=>(3). But i cannot prove (3)=>(1)

    For example in proving (1)=> (2) we have:

    Assume (1)

    Let a>0 & ~((1/a)>0). That implies (a>0)&( (1/a)<0 v (1/a)=0)) =>(a>0 & (1/a)<0) v (a>0& (1/a)=0)=>(a>0&(1/a).a=1 & (1/a)<0) v (a>0 & (1/a).a=1 & (1/a)=0)............................................. ...................A

    Since a>0\Longrightarrow a\neq 0

    Now A implies ( (1/a).a<0 & (1/a).a=1) v ( 0.a=1) => (1<0) v (1=0) => ~(1>0) v ~(1>0) => ~(1>0) and since 1>0 we have a contradiction

    Hence a>0 => (1/a)>0

    In the same style we can prove : (2) => (3).

    The problem is in proving : (3) => (1)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Super Member
    Joined
    Feb 2014
    From
    United States
    Posts
    821
    Thanks
    412

    Re: equivalence

    I can't get there.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,401
    Thanks
    762

    Re: equivalence

    Suppose $c > 0$ is given.

    Taking $a = 1, b = 0$ in (3), we have: $1c = c > 0 = 0c$, so we may conclude $1 > 0$, which is (1). So (3) implies (1).

    (note: by definition, we have $1x = x$, for all real numbers $x$. To see that $0x = 0$, for all real numbers $x$, note that:

    $0x + 0x = (0+0)x = 0x$, so that:

    $0x = 0x + 0 = 0x + (0x + (-0x)) = (0x + 0x) + (-0x) = 0x + (-0x) = 0$).
    Last edited by Deveno; June 29th 2014 at 01:07 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    1

    Re: equivalence

    Quote Originally Posted by Deveno View Post
    Suppose $c > 0$ is given.

    Taking $a = 1, b = 0$ in (3), we have: $1c = c > 0 = 0c$, so we may conclude $1 > 0$, which is (1). So (3) implies (1).

    (note: by definition, we have $1x = x$, for all real numbers $x$. To see that $0x = 0$, for all real numbers $x$, note that:

    $0x + 0x = (0+0)x = 0x$, so that:

    $0x = 0x + 0 = 0x + (0x + (-0x)) = (0x + 0x) + (-0x) = 0x + (-0x) = 0$).

    YOU have assumed c>0

    You have proved : c>0 => 1>0 by using (3)

    Then using M.Ponens you have inferred : 1>0

    BUT by the power of the conditional rule proof you have proved : c>0 => 1>0

    AND not 1>0
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    10,211
    Thanks
    419
    Awards
    1

    Re: equivalence

    c > 0 is one of the conditions of (3). Thus we can use c > 0. I don't see what the problem is.

    -Dan
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    1

    Re: equivalence

    Quote Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
    c > 0 is one of the conditions of (3). Thus we can use c > 0. I don't see what the problem is.

    -Dan
    O.K (3) is: ac>bc & c>0 => a>b.

    Now if you put a=1 ,b=0 ,as Deveno suggested (3) becomes.


    (1.c>0.c & c>0 ) => 1>0.

    Now to show 1>0 ,YOU MUST SHOW : 1.c>0.c & c>0,so that you can use M.Ponens and get 1>0

    Deveno did not show that ,he simply assumed it.

    He assumed : c>0

    But c>0 => 1.c>0.c ,because 1.c=c and 0.c =0

    Hence by M.Ponens we have : 1.c>0.c.

    Thus , 1.c>0.c & c>0

    But by using (3) we have : 1.c>0.c &c>0 => 1>0.

    And by using M.Ponens again we have : 1>0.

    So far we have ASSUMED , c>0 and ended up with 1>0 ..

    But ,to be exact ,we also have assumed : ac>bc &c>0 => a>b

    So we have proved : [(ac>bc& c>0) =>a>b]& c>0 => 1>0 and not 1>0.

    IF you assume ,p and end with q ,you have proved : p=>q and not q
    Last edited by psolaki; June 29th 2014 at 08:18 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    1

    Re: equivalence

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
    I can't get there.
    Maybe the inequalities are not equivalent
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,401
    Thanks
    762

    Re: equivalence

    Quote Originally Posted by psolaki View Post
    O.K (3) is: ac>bc & c>0 => a>b.

    Now if you put a=1 ,b=0 ,as Deveno suggested (3) becomes.


    (1.c>0.c & c>0 ) => 1>0.

    Now to show 1>0 ,YOU MUST SHOW : 1.c>0.c & c>0,so that you can use M.Ponens and get 1>0

    Deveno did not show that ,he simply assumed it.

    He assumed : c>0

    But c>0 => 1.c>0.c ,because 1.c=c and 0.c =0

    Hence by M.Ponens we have : 1.c>0.c.

    Thus , 1.c>0.c & c>0

    But by using (3) we have : 1.c>0.c &c>0 => 1>0.

    And by using M.Ponens again we have : 1>0.

    So far we have ASSUMED , c>0 and ended up with 1>0 ..

    But ,to be exact ,we also have assumed : ac>bc &c>0 => a>b

    So we have proved : [(ac>bc& c>0) =>a>b]& c>0 => 1>0 and not 1>0.

    IF you assume ,p and end with q ,you have proved : p=>q and not q
    We want to show (3) --> (1). Therefore, we assume (3) to be true, and derive (1) conditionally.

    Now (3) itself is a statement of the form: (p&q)-->r. Thus in taking (3) to be true, we are taking it to be of the form: T-->T.

    I have NOT shown that , in fact, 1 > 0. I have shown that if (3) is true, for any $a,b \in \Bbb R$, and $c \in \Bbb R^+$, then in particular it is true for some particular pair $a,b$, namely $a = 1,b = 0$.

    If you want to QUIBBLE, the only "hole" is that the set $\Bbb R^+$ may be empty. This is actually somewhat problemmatic, as one has to define exactly what is MEANT by $x > y$, for two real numbers $x,y$.

    The standard way of doing this, is to use the density of the rational numbers in the reals, and induce the ordering on $\Bbb R$ from that in $\Bbb Q$. That is, we say, for two real numbers $x,y$, that $x < y$, if for every rational number $p < x$, and every rational number $y < q$, we have $p < q$. To an extent, this "begs the question": what does it mean, in the rationals, for $p < q$ to be true? (Note that this specifically addresses the fact that the ordering of the rationals in Archimedean, and the the supremum of a set of rational numbers is a real number (the "least upper bound" property of the reals)).

    Here, we resort to the ordering on the integers: we say that $p = \dfrac{a}{b} < q = \dfrac{c}{d}$, if $ad < bc$. Again, we must ask: how do we define the ordering on the integers?

    We say that for two integers: $m > n$, if $m - n = m + (-n)$ is a (non-zero) natural number. Alternatively, writing an integer as a an equivalence of pairs of natural numbers $[(a,b)]$ ($a$ is the "positive part" and $b$ is the "negative part"), we say that $[(a,b)]$ is positive (> 0 = [(0,0)]) if $a > b$, as natural numbers. So, again, we have "pushed the problem" to yet another ordered set, the natural numbers.

    For two natural numbers, $k,k'$ we say that $k > k'$ if there exists a natural number $n$ such that $k$ is the $n$-th successor of $k'$.

    This means that the integer $k$, that is the equivalence class of $(k,0)$, for a non-zero natural number $k$ is positive (greater than 0), whence it follows that the rational number $\dfrac{k}{1}$ is likewise positive (greater than $0 = \dfrac{0}{1}$), and thus that real number $k$ is also greater than 0. This shows that we have (at least) an infinite choice of real numbers $c > 0$ we might choose from (any real form of a natural number).

    Of course, 1 is one of those numbers, so it appears that we have inadvertently used "circular reasoning" (used (1) to assert the existence of $c$).

    *****************************

    So, can we justify that there exists at least ONE positive real number (without appealing to $1$)? I claim we can, if we can use THESE axioms (in addition to the field axioms):

    A1) $a > 0,b > 0 \implies ab > 0$, for any $a,b \in \Bbb R$.

    A2) $a > 0$ or $-a > 0$, or $a = 0$, and exactly one of these holds.

    Claim: if $a \neq 0$, then $a^2 > 0$.

    Since $\Bbb R$ is a field, if $a^2 = 0$, then either $a = 0$, or...$a = 0$ (fields are integral domains, and posses no zero divisors). Since $a \neq 0$, it follws $a^2 \neq 0$, and thus by (A2) either $a^2 > 0$, or $-a^2 > 0$.

    Now, also by (A2), since $a \neq 0$, we have either $a > 0$ or $a < 0$. If $a > 0$, then by (A1), we have $a^2 > 0$.

    So suppose $- a > 0$.

    Then $(-a)^2 > 0$, by (A1).

    However, $(-a)^2 = [(-1)(a)]^2 = (-1)(a)(-1)(a) = (-1)(-1)(a)(a) = (-1)(-1)a^2 = -(-1)a^2 = 1a^2 = a^2$, so in all cases, $a^2 > 0$.
    Last edited by Deveno; June 30th 2014 at 10:13 AM.
    Thanks from topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,932
    Thanks
    782

    Re: equivalence

    If 1>0, then True. If True, then 1>0. These statements are both true. Hence, 1>0 is equivalent to True. So, you just need to show (3) implies True. Then, True implies 1>0. Suppose (3) is false. Then the statement (3) implies True is true. Suppose (3) is true. Then the statement (3) implies True is true. Hence, (3) implies True. True implies 1>0. Hence, (3) implies 1>0?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,932
    Thanks
    782

    Re: equivalence

    Quote Originally Posted by SlipEternal View Post
    If 1>0, then True. If True, then 1>0. These statements are both true. Hence, 1>0 is equivalent to True. So, you just need to show (3) implies True. Then, True implies 1>0. Suppose (3) is false. Then the statement (3) implies True is true. Suppose (3) is true. Then the statement (3) implies True is true. Hence, (3) implies True. True implies 1>0. Hence, (3) implies 1>0?
    By the way, my point was, 1>0 is a basic axiom of integers and continues to hold for the integers embedded within the real numbers. Hence, any implication of the form P \Rightarrow 1>0 is true regardless of the statement P.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 18th 2013, 11:09 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 17th 2013, 05:12 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 14th 2010, 01:28 PM
  4. Equivalence relation and order of each equivalence class
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 30th 2009, 10:03 AM
  5. Equivalence relation and Equivalence classes?
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 7th 2009, 04:39 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum