Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Proof that all real numbers great than 0

  • 08-03-2008 3:22pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,579 ✭✭✭


    Hi There,

    Just working on a few things here for an exam - I need to proof:

    For all real numbers a, a^2 >= 0

    I have half of proof where:

    One must hold: a >= 0 or a <= 0
    So consider these cases separately.

    Case 1
    a >= 0 --> 0 <= a

    So by the Axiom (if a<=b and 0<=c then ac<=bc) we have
    if we have 0<=a and 0<=a (i know same) then we have
    0a <= aa = 0 <= a^2. IE: a^2 >= 0
    (Taking a = 0, b = a, c = a in the axiom)

    So now how do I prove the other case?
    I mean when I do the other case I end up with a^2 <= 0. So my two cases are a^2 <=0 or a^2 >= 0.

    Obviously a^2<=0 is incorrect but how do I say that - can't assume anything here!

    Thanks.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    1 + (- 1) = 0

    multiply both sides by -1

    (1)(-1) + (-1)(-1) = 0 by associativity and the fact that a.0 = 0

    -1 + (-1)(-1) = 0 by a property of 1

    add 1 to both sides:

    (-1)(-1) = 1 > 0

    Now it's your turn, generalise the argument for A, and not just 1.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,579 ✭✭✭Webmonkey


    Thanks for that,

    Unfort I can't assume properties of 1, since they weren't proved before this proof, I guess he'd accept it but id rather not assume 1 > 0 (Though obviously it is).

    The proof for the second case above, his solution was:

    This is just a special case of the theorem where we take b=a. QED

    Unfort that doesn't help me much - I could write that down i suppose and get marks but rather understand what he meant here!

    Thanks once again for that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    Well, if you start the proof with "let a > 0"
    then a + (-a) = 0
    a(-a) + (-a)(-a) = 0

    -1(a)(a) + (-a)(-a) = 0

    (-a)(-a) = (a)(a) > 0 by your proof above.

    I've assumed -1(a)(a) = (-a)(a), or equivalently -1(a) = -a

    If you need to prove this too, add a to both sides

    -1(a) + a = 0

    then -1(a) is the additive inverse of a, which is -a by definition.

    Beyond that, I don't think I can help you without a list of the axioms you're allowed to use. I'm kind of going on guesswork here.
    This is just a special case of the theorem where we take b=a. QED

    did he prove a theorem where ab > 0 if (a > 0 and b > 0) of if (a < 0 and b < 0)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,579 ✭✭✭Webmonkey


    Fremen wrote:
    did he prove a theorem where ab > 0 if (a > 0 and b > 0) of if (a < 0 and b < 0)?

    Yes something similar, the lemma right before this as a matter of fact.

    Let a,b be real numbers, and suppose a<=0 and b<=0, then ab>=0

    Thanks once again.

    Edit - It looks clear now what he means, if a <= 0 and a <=0 (Taking b=a for second one), then ab>=0, ie aa>=0 so a^2>=0
    Looks like the solution - cheers mate.


Advertisement