seanieg89
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,653
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
'n' repetitions of the re-arrangement inequality.
Yeah, proving this is a bit easier than proving the rearrangement inequality.'n' repetitions of the re-arrangement inequality.
Though I guess this is cheating.
Consider:
I don't think cases are necessary but that looks about right. My solution:Consider:
You end up with something like this:
Now if you separate theinto
you can factor out the
to get something like this:
Now we apply a rule to the term in the brackets:
1) Ifthen we leave the term as it is.
2) Ifthen we make the term
Now we will have two terms in the form:
and
Where in all casesfrom the rule above.
There will always only be two terms of this form, no more, no less. Combining them thus gives:
So all terms areas
and thus:
![]()
Yer I think that's the same as my way just the reverse. You started fromI don't think cases are necessary but that looks about right. My solution:
![]()
And by all cases I meant all terms. i.e. all terms hadI don't think cases are necessary but that looks about right.
Ok, think about this.I have no idea how to do any of these inequalities
That compared to the inequalities we post is like comparing general maths to first year.Ok, think about this.
If you have two real numbers, and you do this:
What domain will the result be in?
ggThat compared to the inequalities we post is like comparing general maths to first year.