Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

## #1 2011-09-09 20:35:04

fromwodehouse
Novice

Offline

### Proof

we had a test and i got these three numbers wrong because i really dont understand a single thing about it and im still in grade 9. and since it bugging me i want to know how to do these things. Thanks ahead!

m-n
1)   Prove: if n<0 and |m|= ------   , -1<m<0 or m>1
m+n

4-x              x+3               2-3x
2)   Given m = -------  ,  n = -------  ,   p =  ------   , and m>n>p
3                  4                   5

7
Prove: the possible value of x is  -       <x  <1
17

3)   Positive numbers a,b, and c satisfy the inequality a+b+c> abc. Prove that a^2+b^2+c^2>abc

## #2 2011-09-09 20:59:58

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

Hi;

1 and 2 are totally unreadable on my browser. I am looking at 3.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

## #3 2011-09-09 21:08:59

fromwodehouse
Novice

Offline

### Re: Proof

okay thanks, 1 and 2 have fractions, i'll try to re write it again

## #4 2011-09-09 21:15:27

fromwodehouse
Novice

Offline

### Re: Proof

1)   Prove: if n<0 and |m|= m-n/m+n  , -1<m<0 or m>1

2)   Given m = 4-x/3,  n = x+3/4,   p = 2-3x/5  , and m>n>p
Prove that the possible value of x is {-7/17<x<1}

## #5 2011-09-09 22:28:59

bob bundy
Moderator

Offline

### Re: Proof

hi bobbym

I'm seeing

1)   Prove: if n<0 and

-1<m<0 or m>1

and    2)   Given

and m>n>p

Prove: the possible value of x is

Bob

Last edited by bob bundy (2011-09-09 22:33:28)

You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

## #6 2011-09-09 22:39:13

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

Hi Bob;

That looks right!

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

## #7 2011-09-09 22:46:44

bob bundy
Moderator

Offline

### Re: Proof

So now we've done the hard bit we  just need to do them.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

## #8 2011-09-10 02:22:03

Full Member

Offline

### Re: Proof

#### fromwodehouse wrote:

1)   Prove: if n<0 and |m|= m-n/m+n  , -1<m<0 or m>1

2)   Given m = 4-x/3,  n = x+3/4,   p = 2-3x/5  , and m>n>p
Prove that the possible value of x is {-7/17<x<1}

fromwodehouse,

because of the Order of Operations,
you must use grouping symbols for these:

Signature line:

I wish a had a more interesting signature line.

## #9 2011-09-10 18:09:06

bob bundy
Moderator

Offline

### Re: Proof

hi fromwoodhouse,

Here's my proof for (1)

Consider the case m ≥ 0

In that case treat |m| as just m

but we know from the case that m and 1 + m > 0 so

Now consider the alternative case that m < 0

That means we can replace |m| with -m

this time we know 1 - m > 0 as m < 0 so

If a product is negative then one factor must be + and one must be - so

either m > 0 and (m + 1) < 0 but this contradicts the assumption that m < 0

or m < 0 and (m + 1) > 0 which leads to -1 < m < 0

Now to look at number (2).  See next post.

Hope that helps

Bob

Last edited by bob bundy (2011-09-10 18:17:33)

You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

## #10 2011-09-10 18:22:38

bob bundy
Moderator

Offline

### Re: Proof

hi again,

(2) Like this:

and

So put these together and you get what you wanted.

Now for (3).  edit: Many hours later.  I cannot do this one yet.  I've put out a general request for more brains.

Bob

Last edited by bob bundy (2011-09-11 01:38:52)

You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

## #11 2011-09-11 22:13:11

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

Hi;

A little help.

3)   Positive numbers a,b, and c satisfy the inequality a+b+c>= abc. Prove that a^2+b^2+c^2>=abc

Therefore it is not mandatory that this can be done by the AMGM.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

## #12 2011-09-12 04:29:28

bob bundy
Moderator

Offline

### Re: Proof

This is for grade 9 and the other two were fairly straight forward.  Could the question be:

Positive numbers a,b, and c satisfy the inequality a+b+c>= abc. Prove that a^2+b^2+c^2>=(abc)^2

because that is do-able.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

## #13 2011-09-12 04:38:06

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

Hi Bob;

Positive numbers a,b, and c satisfy the inequality a+b+c>= abc. Prove that a^2+b^2+c^2>=(abc)^2

because that is do-able.

Not if you have

a = 2, b = 5 / 4, c = 2
a = 3, b = 1, c = 2

I am fairly sure the original problem #3 is true.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

## #14 2011-09-12 05:15:52

bob bundy
Moderator

Offline

### Re: Proof

Ok, my mistake.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

## #15 2011-09-12 06:06:04

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

It is okay. I am not sure about the problem either.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

## #16 2011-09-12 06:31:20

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Online

### Re: Proof

hi guys

is this correct for (3):

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón

## #17 2011-09-12 06:42:03

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

Hi;

This statement is not true under the conditions of the problem.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

## #18 2011-09-12 06:43:28

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Online

### Re: Proof

why not?

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón

## #19 2011-09-12 06:46:21

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

Hi;

why not?

Try a = 2, b = 2, c = 1.

I think this is where your error is.

You are okay after A)

It was a pretty good idea though.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

## #20 2011-09-13 03:41:43

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

Hi all;

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

## #21 2011-09-13 06:47:58

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Online

### Re: Proof

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón

## #22 2011-09-13 07:22:34

bobbym

Online

### Re: Proof

Hi;

I can use it a lot easier than explain it. Here is the site that taught me.

http://2000clicks.com/MathHelp/IneqMuir … ality.aspx

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.