• Nie Znaleziono Wyników

Problem Let x, y ∈ R. Prove that if y

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Problem Let x, y ∈ R. Prove that if y"

Copied!
1
0
0

Pełen tekst

(1)

1 LO Batory September 5, 2017

Problem Let x, y ∈ R. Prove that if y

3

+ yx

2

¬ x

3

+ xy

2

then y ¬ x.

Solution We want to prove a conditional statement. The equivalent to this statement is its contrapositive:

if y > x, then y

3

+ yx

2

> x

3

+ xy

2

y > x is our assumption. y

3

+ yx

2

> x

3

+ xy

2

is the conclusion we want to reach.

We start with the assumption and multiply both sides by (x

2

+ y

2

):

y > x / (x

2

+ y

2

) y(x

2

+ y

2

) > x(x

2

+ y

2

)

yx

2

+ y

3

> x

3

+ xy

2

y

3

+ yx

2

> x

3

+ xy

2

Of course the crucial step is multiplying both sides by (x

2

+ y

2

). Can we do

this? We need to make sure of two things. First, that this expression is not

less than 0 (otherwise we would need to reverse the inequality sign). Second,

that it is not 0 (if it is, then the inequality may not be strict, i.e. it would

become ­ instead of >). Think why in our example x

2

+ y

2

is positive.

Cytaty

Powiązane dokumenty

Thus eigenfunctions of the Fourier transform defined by the negative definite form −x 2 in one variable are the same as eigenfunctions of the classical in- verse Fourier

4.5.. Denote this difference by R.. In a typical problem of combinatorial num- ber theory, the extremal sets are either very regular, or random sets. Our case is different. If A is

positive power of jD(F )j, so that the error term in Mahler's result a tually.. in reases as a fun tion of

We give a direct proof of this characterization and get stronger results, which allows us to obtain some other results on ω-limit sets, which previously were difficult to prove.. Let

As a corollary, we obtain the following main theorem of this paper: Chainable continua admit no expansive homeomorphisms2. There are no expansive homeomorphisms on chainable

However, since harmonic functions are continuous, the use of Lemma 1 is not essential to the proof of Theorem 1, and Theorem 1 is easily generalized.. We note that Armitage

A structure M is said to be a discrete o-minimal structure in the broad sense if it is an infinite linearly ordered structure such that the set of points which have no

The result of [LM-L] implies that an ultrametric space can be bi-Lipschitz embedded in R n if and only if its Assouad dimension is finite (see also [A]).. According to Semmes