I think there is an unfortunate ambiguity in the use of the word "corresponding" in this case. In this usage, corresponding refers to our day-to-day usage of the term; not the "corresponding" as in "alternate" and "co-interior" which all 3 are technical terms. So the use of "corresponding" in the given explanation leads to this confusion.
They are alternate angles to me.
image]
You'd need to give the reason as related to the congruent triangles part. If you said alternate angles as the reason for the equal angles, then that means you're assuming the lines are parallel, which is what we're trying to prove.Would my reason be good enough as well?
Assuming a is A and b is B, could there possibly be a typo in the question?Show by mathematical induction that [(a+b)/2]^2 (less than or equal to, I don't know how to type it with my keyboard) (A^n+B^n)/2.
Question asked to prove that A^(n+1)-A^nB+B^(n+1)-B^nA=(a-b)^2(A^n-1+A^n-2+...+B^n-1) and deduce A^(n+1)+B^(n+1) (greater than or equal to) A^nB+B^nA, given that A>0, B>0 and n is a positive integer beforehand, which I did get, and I think I'm supposed to use them in the induction, but I'm not sure how...
Yeah! I made a little typo on the denominator
Can you please retype what you're trying to prove using this? http://s1.daumcdn.net/editor/fp/service_nc/pencil/Pencil_chromestore.htmlDrawing attention to this question, which was posted a few days ago and still has no replies. I checked the times, and this was posted shortly before another user posted a reply to a previous question so perhaps it was lost in the replies? But anyway, I'd really like this question answered thanks ^_^
It should just be what HeroicPandas and I wrote above.Can you please retype what you're trying to prove using this? http://s1.daumcdn.net/editor/fp/service_nc/pencil/Pencil_chromestore.html
Copy and paste the entire syntax onto this forum.
Alright if you're sure then...It should just be what HeroicPandas and I wrote above.
Don't iterate inequalities. Find other inequalities to use in the inductive step.Alright if you're sure then...
...well I am missing the obvious again for the inductive step:
Hint: Use the fact that (an - bn)(a-b) is non-negative for all real a and b.Alright if you're sure then...
...well I am missing the obvious again for the inductive step:
Would not have thought about that at all. Just by substituting this result into line 3 of the proof the result falls out immediately.Hint: Use the fact that (an - bn)(a-b) is non-negative for all real a and b.
Well if you can't prove inequality as it holds, subtracting is always good for HSC questions, because usually it is possible to factorise and partition the expression into strictly positive terms.Would not have thought about that at all. Just by substituting this result into line 3 of the proof the result falls out immediately.
I was trying to think about why akb+abk≤ak+1+bk+1. Guess I've never seen that before to use it.