Proof explanation $|x| - |y| le |x - y|$ (Spivak's Calculus Book)

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I was triying to do this but I couldn't then, I tried to see the answer, and, the answer not satisfies me. The book, and my search on the internet use this.



$$|x + y| le |x| + |y|$$
Which is true, then they use someone called "Triangular Inequality"



$$|(x - y) + y| le |x - y| + |y|$$



$$|x| le |x - y| + |y|$$



$$|x| - |y| le |x - y|$$



And that's the proof, but, it doesn't seem so good for me.



If I have the first inequality again (Which is true)



$$|x + y| le |x| + |y|$$ Then, let $x$ be $(n - k)$ and $n,k in Re$



$$|(n - k) + y| le |n - k| + |y|$$



$$|(n - k) + y| - |y| le |n - k|$$



Then, my proof is based in the fact that if k = y, then



$$|n| - |y| le |n - k|$$ Which is I want to prove. That's why I don't get the first proof, because to me seems so arbitrary







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
    – 4-ier
    Aug 23 at 6:31










  • The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Aug 23 at 6:31










  • Well, that's why I wanted to explain with my second proof. If you change x for (x -y) and you base your proof in that, it's okay, but, it only works if y cancels with the other y. If the 'k' in my proof was another value, it doesn't proof what I want to prove
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 6:35










  • I will check that post
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 6:35














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I was triying to do this but I couldn't then, I tried to see the answer, and, the answer not satisfies me. The book, and my search on the internet use this.



$$|x + y| le |x| + |y|$$
Which is true, then they use someone called "Triangular Inequality"



$$|(x - y) + y| le |x - y| + |y|$$



$$|x| le |x - y| + |y|$$



$$|x| - |y| le |x - y|$$



And that's the proof, but, it doesn't seem so good for me.



If I have the first inequality again (Which is true)



$$|x + y| le |x| + |y|$$ Then, let $x$ be $(n - k)$ and $n,k in Re$



$$|(n - k) + y| le |n - k| + |y|$$



$$|(n - k) + y| - |y| le |n - k|$$



Then, my proof is based in the fact that if k = y, then



$$|n| - |y| le |n - k|$$ Which is I want to prove. That's why I don't get the first proof, because to me seems so arbitrary







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
    – 4-ier
    Aug 23 at 6:31










  • The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Aug 23 at 6:31










  • Well, that's why I wanted to explain with my second proof. If you change x for (x -y) and you base your proof in that, it's okay, but, it only works if y cancels with the other y. If the 'k' in my proof was another value, it doesn't proof what I want to prove
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 6:35










  • I will check that post
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 6:35












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I was triying to do this but I couldn't then, I tried to see the answer, and, the answer not satisfies me. The book, and my search on the internet use this.



$$|x + y| le |x| + |y|$$
Which is true, then they use someone called "Triangular Inequality"



$$|(x - y) + y| le |x - y| + |y|$$



$$|x| le |x - y| + |y|$$



$$|x| - |y| le |x - y|$$



And that's the proof, but, it doesn't seem so good for me.



If I have the first inequality again (Which is true)



$$|x + y| le |x| + |y|$$ Then, let $x$ be $(n - k)$ and $n,k in Re$



$$|(n - k) + y| le |n - k| + |y|$$



$$|(n - k) + y| - |y| le |n - k|$$



Then, my proof is based in the fact that if k = y, then



$$|n| - |y| le |n - k|$$ Which is I want to prove. That's why I don't get the first proof, because to me seems so arbitrary







share|cite|improve this question














I was triying to do this but I couldn't then, I tried to see the answer, and, the answer not satisfies me. The book, and my search on the internet use this.



$$|x + y| le |x| + |y|$$
Which is true, then they use someone called "Triangular Inequality"



$$|(x - y) + y| le |x - y| + |y|$$



$$|x| le |x - y| + |y|$$



$$|x| - |y| le |x - y|$$



And that's the proof, but, it doesn't seem so good for me.



If I have the first inequality again (Which is true)



$$|x + y| le |x| + |y|$$ Then, let $x$ be $(n - k)$ and $n,k in Re$



$$|(n - k) + y| le |n - k| + |y|$$



$$|(n - k) + y| - |y| le |n - k|$$



Then, my proof is based in the fact that if k = y, then



$$|n| - |y| le |n - k|$$ Which is I want to prove. That's why I don't get the first proof, because to me seems so arbitrary









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 23 at 7:37

























asked Aug 23 at 6:26









Enigsis

849




849







  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
    – 4-ier
    Aug 23 at 6:31










  • The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Aug 23 at 6:31










  • Well, that's why I wanted to explain with my second proof. If you change x for (x -y) and you base your proof in that, it's okay, but, it only works if y cancels with the other y. If the 'k' in my proof was another value, it doesn't proof what I want to prove
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 6:35










  • I will check that post
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 6:35












  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
    – 4-ier
    Aug 23 at 6:31










  • The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Aug 23 at 6:31










  • Well, that's why I wanted to explain with my second proof. If you change x for (x -y) and you base your proof in that, it's okay, but, it only works if y cancels with the other y. If the 'k' in my proof was another value, it doesn't proof what I want to prove
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 6:35










  • I will check that post
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 6:35







1




1




Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
– 4-ier
Aug 23 at 6:31




Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
– 4-ier
Aug 23 at 6:31












The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Aug 23 at 6:31




The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Aug 23 at 6:31












Well, that's why I wanted to explain with my second proof. If you change x for (x -y) and you base your proof in that, it's okay, but, it only works if y cancels with the other y. If the 'k' in my proof was another value, it doesn't proof what I want to prove
– Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35




Well, that's why I wanted to explain with my second proof. If you change x for (x -y) and you base your proof in that, it's okay, but, it only works if y cancels with the other y. If the 'k' in my proof was another value, it doesn't proof what I want to prove
– Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35












I will check that post
– Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35




I will check that post
– Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










You've proven $|n-k+y|-|y|le|n-k|$ for any $n,,k,,y$. The special case $k=y$ of this theorem is therefore also valid, giving $|n|-|y|le|n-y|$. Although any other choice of $k$ wouldn't obtain this second result, as long as some value of $k$ lets you obtain it it's proven.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:29










  • @Enigsis Do you think a proof that $(x+y)^2=x^2+2xy+y^2$ isn't enough to prove $(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1$ because the only value of $y$ that obtains that is $y=1$?
    – J.G.
    Aug 23 at 7:30










  • I see the Triangle Inequality in that way, I don't understand it, why it works, if only use $k = y$. You're converting $x$ into $n - k$ where $n$ is $x$ and $k$ is $y$
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:31










  • Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:34

















up vote
1
down vote













One way into this is just to go through the cases so there are basically eight options:



1) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



2) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



3) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



4) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



5) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



6) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



7) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



8) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



We need to show that $|x|-|y| leq |x-y|$.



In case 1), all the modulus signs fall away (because $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ are all positive). So we need to prove $x-y leq x-y$. This is easy $x-y = x-y$ :)



In case 2) the left hand side is negative the right hand side cannot be and a negative number is smaller than a non negative number.



In the third case the right hand side will be $|x| + |y|$ which is always going to be bigger than $|x|-|y|$.



The same applies in case 4).



Actually the same applies in 5) and 6) because here, on the right hand side, we will be taking a negative number from a negative number and then turning it positive which is just the equivalent of adding the modulus of both numbers.



In case 7) $x$ is greater than $y$ and they are both negative numbers so if we think of their absolute values then $x$ will be less than $y$. This lets us know that the left hand side is negative (we are taking a larger number from a smaller number) where the right hand side cannot be (because it is an absolute value).



This just leaves us with case 8). In this case, we know that all of the modulus operators are trimming off minus signs (as $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ will all be negative). So here we just need to prove that $(-x)-(-y) leq -(x-y)$ or $y-x leq y-x$ which is true as $y-x=y-x$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2891768%2fproof-explanation-x-y-le-x-y-spivaks-calculus-book%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    You've proven $|n-k+y|-|y|le|n-k|$ for any $n,,k,,y$. The special case $k=y$ of this theorem is therefore also valid, giving $|n|-|y|le|n-y|$. Although any other choice of $k$ wouldn't obtain this second result, as long as some value of $k$ lets you obtain it it's proven.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:29










    • @Enigsis Do you think a proof that $(x+y)^2=x^2+2xy+y^2$ isn't enough to prove $(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1$ because the only value of $y$ that obtains that is $y=1$?
      – J.G.
      Aug 23 at 7:30










    • I see the Triangle Inequality in that way, I don't understand it, why it works, if only use $k = y$. You're converting $x$ into $n - k$ where $n$ is $x$ and $k$ is $y$
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:31










    • Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:34














    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    You've proven $|n-k+y|-|y|le|n-k|$ for any $n,,k,,y$. The special case $k=y$ of this theorem is therefore also valid, giving $|n|-|y|le|n-y|$. Although any other choice of $k$ wouldn't obtain this second result, as long as some value of $k$ lets you obtain it it's proven.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:29










    • @Enigsis Do you think a proof that $(x+y)^2=x^2+2xy+y^2$ isn't enough to prove $(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1$ because the only value of $y$ that obtains that is $y=1$?
      – J.G.
      Aug 23 at 7:30










    • I see the Triangle Inequality in that way, I don't understand it, why it works, if only use $k = y$. You're converting $x$ into $n - k$ where $n$ is $x$ and $k$ is $y$
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:31










    • Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:34












    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted






    You've proven $|n-k+y|-|y|le|n-k|$ for any $n,,k,,y$. The special case $k=y$ of this theorem is therefore also valid, giving $|n|-|y|le|n-y|$. Although any other choice of $k$ wouldn't obtain this second result, as long as some value of $k$ lets you obtain it it's proven.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    You've proven $|n-k+y|-|y|le|n-k|$ for any $n,,k,,y$. The special case $k=y$ of this theorem is therefore also valid, giving $|n|-|y|le|n-y|$. Although any other choice of $k$ wouldn't obtain this second result, as long as some value of $k$ lets you obtain it it's proven.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Aug 23 at 7:27









    J.G.

    14k11425




    14k11425











    • That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:29










    • @Enigsis Do you think a proof that $(x+y)^2=x^2+2xy+y^2$ isn't enough to prove $(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1$ because the only value of $y$ that obtains that is $y=1$?
      – J.G.
      Aug 23 at 7:30










    • I see the Triangle Inequality in that way, I don't understand it, why it works, if only use $k = y$. You're converting $x$ into $n - k$ where $n$ is $x$ and $k$ is $y$
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:31










    • Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:34
















    • That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:29










    • @Enigsis Do you think a proof that $(x+y)^2=x^2+2xy+y^2$ isn't enough to prove $(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1$ because the only value of $y$ that obtains that is $y=1$?
      – J.G.
      Aug 23 at 7:30










    • I see the Triangle Inequality in that way, I don't understand it, why it works, if only use $k = y$. You're converting $x$ into $n - k$ where $n$ is $x$ and $k$ is $y$
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:31










    • Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
      – Enigsis
      Aug 23 at 7:34















    That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:29




    That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:29












    @Enigsis Do you think a proof that $(x+y)^2=x^2+2xy+y^2$ isn't enough to prove $(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1$ because the only value of $y$ that obtains that is $y=1$?
    – J.G.
    Aug 23 at 7:30




    @Enigsis Do you think a proof that $(x+y)^2=x^2+2xy+y^2$ isn't enough to prove $(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1$ because the only value of $y$ that obtains that is $y=1$?
    – J.G.
    Aug 23 at 7:30












    I see the Triangle Inequality in that way, I don't understand it, why it works, if only use $k = y$. You're converting $x$ into $n - k$ where $n$ is $x$ and $k$ is $y$
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:31




    I see the Triangle Inequality in that way, I don't understand it, why it works, if only use $k = y$. You're converting $x$ into $n - k$ where $n$ is $x$ and $k$ is $y$
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:31












    Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:34




    Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
    – Enigsis
    Aug 23 at 7:34










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    One way into this is just to go through the cases so there are basically eight options:



    1) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



    2) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



    3) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



    4) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



    5) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



    6) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



    7) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



    8) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



    We need to show that $|x|-|y| leq |x-y|$.



    In case 1), all the modulus signs fall away (because $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ are all positive). So we need to prove $x-y leq x-y$. This is easy $x-y = x-y$ :)



    In case 2) the left hand side is negative the right hand side cannot be and a negative number is smaller than a non negative number.



    In the third case the right hand side will be $|x| + |y|$ which is always going to be bigger than $|x|-|y|$.



    The same applies in case 4).



    Actually the same applies in 5) and 6) because here, on the right hand side, we will be taking a negative number from a negative number and then turning it positive which is just the equivalent of adding the modulus of both numbers.



    In case 7) $x$ is greater than $y$ and they are both negative numbers so if we think of their absolute values then $x$ will be less than $y$. This lets us know that the left hand side is negative (we are taking a larger number from a smaller number) where the right hand side cannot be (because it is an absolute value).



    This just leaves us with case 8). In this case, we know that all of the modulus operators are trimming off minus signs (as $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ will all be negative). So here we just need to prove that $(-x)-(-y) leq -(x-y)$ or $y-x leq y-x$ which is true as $y-x=y-x$.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      One way into this is just to go through the cases so there are basically eight options:



      1) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



      2) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



      3) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



      4) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



      5) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



      6) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



      7) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



      8) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



      We need to show that $|x|-|y| leq |x-y|$.



      In case 1), all the modulus signs fall away (because $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ are all positive). So we need to prove $x-y leq x-y$. This is easy $x-y = x-y$ :)



      In case 2) the left hand side is negative the right hand side cannot be and a negative number is smaller than a non negative number.



      In the third case the right hand side will be $|x| + |y|$ which is always going to be bigger than $|x|-|y|$.



      The same applies in case 4).



      Actually the same applies in 5) and 6) because here, on the right hand side, we will be taking a negative number from a negative number and then turning it positive which is just the equivalent of adding the modulus of both numbers.



      In case 7) $x$ is greater than $y$ and they are both negative numbers so if we think of their absolute values then $x$ will be less than $y$. This lets us know that the left hand side is negative (we are taking a larger number from a smaller number) where the right hand side cannot be (because it is an absolute value).



      This just leaves us with case 8). In this case, we know that all of the modulus operators are trimming off minus signs (as $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ will all be negative). So here we just need to prove that $(-x)-(-y) leq -(x-y)$ or $y-x leq y-x$ which is true as $y-x=y-x$.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        One way into this is just to go through the cases so there are basically eight options:



        1) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



        2) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



        3) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



        4) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



        5) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



        6) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



        7) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



        8) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



        We need to show that $|x|-|y| leq |x-y|$.



        In case 1), all the modulus signs fall away (because $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ are all positive). So we need to prove $x-y leq x-y$. This is easy $x-y = x-y$ :)



        In case 2) the left hand side is negative the right hand side cannot be and a negative number is smaller than a non negative number.



        In the third case the right hand side will be $|x| + |y|$ which is always going to be bigger than $|x|-|y|$.



        The same applies in case 4).



        Actually the same applies in 5) and 6) because here, on the right hand side, we will be taking a negative number from a negative number and then turning it positive which is just the equivalent of adding the modulus of both numbers.



        In case 7) $x$ is greater than $y$ and they are both negative numbers so if we think of their absolute values then $x$ will be less than $y$. This lets us know that the left hand side is negative (we are taking a larger number from a smaller number) where the right hand side cannot be (because it is an absolute value).



        This just leaves us with case 8). In this case, we know that all of the modulus operators are trimming off minus signs (as $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ will all be negative). So here we just need to prove that $(-x)-(-y) leq -(x-y)$ or $y-x leq y-x$ which is true as $y-x=y-x$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        One way into this is just to go through the cases so there are basically eight options:



        1) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



        2) $x$ positive $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



        3) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



        4) $x$ positive $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



        5) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ greater than $y$.



        6) $x$ negative $y$ positive and $x$ less than $y$.



        7) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ greater than $y$.



        8) $x$ negative $y$ negative and $x$ less than $y$.



        We need to show that $|x|-|y| leq |x-y|$.



        In case 1), all the modulus signs fall away (because $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ are all positive). So we need to prove $x-y leq x-y$. This is easy $x-y = x-y$ :)



        In case 2) the left hand side is negative the right hand side cannot be and a negative number is smaller than a non negative number.



        In the third case the right hand side will be $|x| + |y|$ which is always going to be bigger than $|x|-|y|$.



        The same applies in case 4).



        Actually the same applies in 5) and 6) because here, on the right hand side, we will be taking a negative number from a negative number and then turning it positive which is just the equivalent of adding the modulus of both numbers.



        In case 7) $x$ is greater than $y$ and they are both negative numbers so if we think of their absolute values then $x$ will be less than $y$. This lets us know that the left hand side is negative (we are taking a larger number from a smaller number) where the right hand side cannot be (because it is an absolute value).



        This just leaves us with case 8). In this case, we know that all of the modulus operators are trimming off minus signs (as $x$, $y$ and $x-y$ will all be negative). So here we just need to prove that $(-x)-(-y) leq -(x-y)$ or $y-x leq y-x$ which is true as $y-x=y-x$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 23 at 7:18









        Simon Terrington

        40526




        40526



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2891768%2fproof-explanation-x-y-le-x-y-spivaks-calculus-book%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?