Proof explanation $|x| - |y| le |x - y|$ (Spivak's Calculus Book)
Clash 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
algebra-precalculus inequality proof-explanation
add a comment |Â
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
algebra-precalculus inequality proof-explanation
1
Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 6:31
The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
â 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
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
I will check that post
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
add a comment |Â
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
algebra-precalculus inequality proof-explanation
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
algebra-precalculus inequality proof-explanation
edited Aug 23 at 7:37
asked Aug 23 at 6:26
Enigsis
849
849
1
Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 6:31
The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
â 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
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
I will check that post
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
add a comment |Â
1
Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 6:31
The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
â 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
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
I will check that post
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
1
1
Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 6:31
Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 6:31
The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
â 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?
â 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
â 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
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
I will check that post
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
I will check that post
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
add a comment |Â
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.
That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
â 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 $y=1$?
â 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 $y$
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:31
Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:34
add a comment |Â
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 $y-x=y-x$.
add a comment |Â
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.
That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
â 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 $y=1$?
â 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 $y$
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:31
Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:34
add a comment |Â
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.
That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
â 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 $y=1$?
â 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 $y$
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:31
Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:34
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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.
â 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 $y=1$?
â 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 $y$
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:31
Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:34
add a comment |Â
That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
â 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 $y=1$?
â 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 $y$
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:31
Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:34
That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:29
That's why I mean, if you choose any other $k$ you don't obtain that.
â 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 $y=1$?
â 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 $y=1$?
â 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 $y$
â 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 $y$
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:31
Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:34
Hmm, I think that I'm understanding that
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 7:34
add a comment |Â
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 $y-x=y-x$.
add a comment |Â
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 $y-x=y-x$.
add a comment |Â
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 $y-x=y-x$.
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 $y-x=y-x$.
answered Aug 23 at 7:18
Simon Terrington
40526
40526
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Possible duplicate of Reverse Triangle Inequality Proof
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 6:31
The proof in your first paragraph seems perfectly sound to me. What's your objection to it?
â 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
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35
I will check that post
â Enigsis
Aug 23 at 6:35