Math Is Fun Forum

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

You are not logged in.

#1 2012-02-11 13:55:56

mathmatt
Member
Registered: 2012-02-11
Posts: 1

Proposition: If x>0, then x^-1 >0.

Hello,

I am currently working through John Erdman's "Problem Text in Advanced Calculus" in preparation for graduate school entrance exams. 
In Appendix H, Problem H.1.10 claims:

Proposition: If x > 0, then x^-1 > 0.

My question concerns the efficiency of my proof.  Using the axioms laid out by Erdman, it seems impossible to prove H.1.10 without first proving a later proposition and two lemmas.  In the "For Students" section, Erdman encourages readers to 'consider the organization of the material.'  Is there a more straight forward proof that I have missed which does not require the lemmas and later proposition or did Erdman (un)intentionally present proposition H.1.10 before H.1.13? 

I understand this is a rather specific question, but any feedback would be highly appreciated.  I have spent much time considering an alternate solution, yet have found none.  While I enjoyed reading your discussions on the proposition, which you will not allow me to provide a link for, each approach assumes axioms Erdman has not.  The textbook can be found easily through a google search for "Erdman A Problem Text in Advanced Calculus."

Sorry if these proofs are a little cumbersome due to the naming of each theorem justifying a conclusion.  Since many of these claims are commonly held 'truths,'  I want to be sure I'm making no unreasonable assumptions.  My proof of H.1.10 is as follows:

H.1.13

Prop: Show that x<0 if and only if -x >0.

Proof: 
    The assumption x<0, by definition of <, is equivalent to


which, by H.1.5, means -x>0.
                                                                                    QED.

Lemma 1:

Proof:
     We proceed by contradiction.  Suppose x=0 whenever x>0.  Then by H.1.5, the assumption x>0 tells us x is in P.  However, this is a contradiction, since the axiom of trichotomy states x cannot be both equal to zero and in P.  So, x !=0.
                                                                                                                                                                         QED.
Lemma 2:

If x>0 and y<0, then xy<0.

Proof:
     By H.1.5, x>0 means x is in P.  By H.1.13, y<0 implies -y>0.  That is, -y is also in P.  Since P is closed under multiplication, x(-y) is in P, or by G.4.4, -(xy) is in P.  So,





by the definition of <.
                                                                                                                                                                                      QED.

H.1.10

Proposition: If x>0, then x^-1>0.

Proof:
     Firstly, by Lemma 1, x != 0.  By axiom III, every element in R different from 0 has a multiplicative inverse.  So, x^-1 exists and is nonzero.  It remains to show that x^-1 > 0.  We proceed by contradiction.

We begin by observing that by the definition of multiplicative inverse and H.1.9,


So, x*x^-1 is in P by H.1.5.  Now, suppose x^-1 < 0.  Then, by the assumption that x>0 and Lemma 2, we see x*x^-1 < 0.  That is, x*x^-1 is NOT in P, a contradiction.  So, x^-1 > 0.
                                                                                                                                                                                         QED.

Thanks!

Offline

#2 2012-06-25 23:21:09

anonimnystefy
Real Member
From: Harlan's World
Registered: 2011-05-23
Posts: 16,049

Re: Proposition: If x>0, then x^-1 >0.

Hi mathmatt

I do not see where the theorem H.1.13 comes in your proof. Could you tell me what to look at in your proof?


“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
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB