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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**engrymbiff****Member**- Registered: 2010-06-14
- Posts: 28

How to do this?

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,648

Hi;

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**engrymbiff****Member**- Registered: 2010-06-14
- Posts: 28

Sorry, that didn't help me..

Offline

Hi Bobbym,

Is it okay to start with the thing we are trying to prove?

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

'Humanity is still kept intact. It remains within.' -Alokananda

**Online**

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,648

Hi;

This is the problem:

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,836

Hi bobbym

I think what Agnishom wanted to ask you is whether it is okay to start the proof with what we want to prove and work our way to a true statement...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,648

Hi anonimnystefy;

I missed that. I am sorry about that. Bob and I had a good discussion on that and it seems better to work backwards in that case. Even though they do work forwards a lot in inequality books.

Unfortunately, whatever brilliant idea I had about this problem 1 year ago, I can not remember it at all.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**engrymbiff****Member**- Registered: 2010-06-14
- Posts: 28

Hm... I really cannot solve it, I have a vague memory of how I solved it last time but now I don't have a good clue of how...

Offline

**scientia****Member**- Registered: 2009-11-13
- Posts: 222

I have a very weird solution; you probably won't like it but I'll have a go anyway.

Let .

Then

because .Let

.We find

(just). It follows that since the quadratic function is strictly increasing for positiveThe LHS is

and so we are done.Offline

Pages: **1**