Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Proof that all real numbers great than 0

  • 08-03-2008 04:22PM
    #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