Proof verification $(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2+ (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ (Spivak's Calculus)

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











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I have to prove the Schwarz inequality with that, then I want to know if what I did was so rigorous or not (And if it's good).



$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then, to me it seems, that if I take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term



I get



$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) ge (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 $$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers.



$$sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) ge |x_1y_1 + x_2y_2| $$



Then



$$sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2²) ge (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2) ge -sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Since $|a| le b$ then $-b le a le b$



Then I got the Schwarz inequality . I think in this too



If $a,b ge 0$ and $a = b$, then $a - a le b$



In this case, we have three terms, all positives. Then $a = b + c$ and then $a ge b + c - c$



What do you thing about this?










share|cite|improve this question























  • Looks fine. Except, at the end, don't you mean $mid amidle b$. Also, not sure what you did after that.
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 4:36










  • Oh, sorry, it's $|a| le b$
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 4:38










  • Already solved, I wanted to explain what I did. Is that so rigorous?
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 4:40










  • I like it. Did Spivak suggest this?
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 4:41






  • 1




    two points: 1) this method works only for binomials (e.g. it will not work for $(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2+y_3^2)$; 2) you must state when the equality holds ($x_1y_2-x_2y_1=0$). Also, you can check this: rgmia.org/papers/v12e/Cauchy-Schwarzinequality.pdf
    – farruhota
    Aug 31 at 17:57















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I have to prove the Schwarz inequality with that, then I want to know if what I did was so rigorous or not (And if it's good).



$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then, to me it seems, that if I take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term



I get



$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) ge (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 $$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers.



$$sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) ge |x_1y_1 + x_2y_2| $$



Then



$$sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2²) ge (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2) ge -sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Since $|a| le b$ then $-b le a le b$



Then I got the Schwarz inequality . I think in this too



If $a,b ge 0$ and $a = b$, then $a - a le b$



In this case, we have three terms, all positives. Then $a = b + c$ and then $a ge b + c - c$



What do you thing about this?










share|cite|improve this question























  • Looks fine. Except, at the end, don't you mean $mid amidle b$. Also, not sure what you did after that.
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 4:36










  • Oh, sorry, it's $|a| le b$
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 4:38










  • Already solved, I wanted to explain what I did. Is that so rigorous?
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 4:40










  • I like it. Did Spivak suggest this?
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 4:41






  • 1




    two points: 1) this method works only for binomials (e.g. it will not work for $(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2+y_3^2)$; 2) you must state when the equality holds ($x_1y_2-x_2y_1=0$). Also, you can check this: rgmia.org/papers/v12e/Cauchy-Schwarzinequality.pdf
    – farruhota
    Aug 31 at 17:57













up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





I have to prove the Schwarz inequality with that, then I want to know if what I did was so rigorous or not (And if it's good).



$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then, to me it seems, that if I take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term



I get



$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) ge (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 $$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers.



$$sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) ge |x_1y_1 + x_2y_2| $$



Then



$$sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2²) ge (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2) ge -sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Since $|a| le b$ then $-b le a le b$



Then I got the Schwarz inequality . I think in this too



If $a,b ge 0$ and $a = b$, then $a - a le b$



In this case, we have three terms, all positives. Then $a = b + c$ and then $a ge b + c - c$



What do you thing about this?










share|cite|improve this question















I have to prove the Schwarz inequality with that, then I want to know if what I did was so rigorous or not (And if it's good).



$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then, to me it seems, that if I take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term



I get



$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) ge (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 $$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers.



$$sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) ge |x_1y_1 + x_2y_2| $$



Then



$$sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2²) ge (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2) ge -sqrt(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Since $|a| le b$ then $-b le a le b$



Then I got the Schwarz inequality . I think in this too



If $a,b ge 0$ and $a = b$, then $a - a le b$



In this case, we have three terms, all positives. Then $a = b + c$ and then $a ge b + c - c$



What do you thing about this?







algebra-precalculus proof-verification inequality alternative-proof cauchy-schwarz-inequality






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 5 at 3:01

























asked Aug 30 at 3:13









Enigsis

849




849











  • Looks fine. Except, at the end, don't you mean $mid amidle b$. Also, not sure what you did after that.
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 4:36










  • Oh, sorry, it's $|a| le b$
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 4:38










  • Already solved, I wanted to explain what I did. Is that so rigorous?
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 4:40










  • I like it. Did Spivak suggest this?
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 4:41






  • 1




    two points: 1) this method works only for binomials (e.g. it will not work for $(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2+y_3^2)$; 2) you must state when the equality holds ($x_1y_2-x_2y_1=0$). Also, you can check this: rgmia.org/papers/v12e/Cauchy-Schwarzinequality.pdf
    – farruhota
    Aug 31 at 17:57

















  • Looks fine. Except, at the end, don't you mean $mid amidle b$. Also, not sure what you did after that.
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 4:36










  • Oh, sorry, it's $|a| le b$
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 4:38










  • Already solved, I wanted to explain what I did. Is that so rigorous?
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 4:40










  • I like it. Did Spivak suggest this?
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 4:41






  • 1




    two points: 1) this method works only for binomials (e.g. it will not work for $(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2+y_3^2)$; 2) you must state when the equality holds ($x_1y_2-x_2y_1=0$). Also, you can check this: rgmia.org/papers/v12e/Cauchy-Schwarzinequality.pdf
    – farruhota
    Aug 31 at 17:57
















Looks fine. Except, at the end, don't you mean $mid amidle b$. Also, not sure what you did after that.
– Chris Custer
Aug 30 at 4:36




Looks fine. Except, at the end, don't you mean $mid amidle b$. Also, not sure what you did after that.
– Chris Custer
Aug 30 at 4:36












Oh, sorry, it's $|a| le b$
– Enigsis
Aug 30 at 4:38




Oh, sorry, it's $|a| le b$
– Enigsis
Aug 30 at 4:38












Already solved, I wanted to explain what I did. Is that so rigorous?
– Enigsis
Aug 30 at 4:40




Already solved, I wanted to explain what I did. Is that so rigorous?
– Enigsis
Aug 30 at 4:40












I like it. Did Spivak suggest this?
– Chris Custer
Aug 30 at 4:41




I like it. Did Spivak suggest this?
– Chris Custer
Aug 30 at 4:41




1




1




two points: 1) this method works only for binomials (e.g. it will not work for $(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2+y_3^2)$; 2) you must state when the equality holds ($x_1y_2-x_2y_1=0$). Also, you can check this: rgmia.org/papers/v12e/Cauchy-Schwarzinequality.pdf
– farruhota
Aug 31 at 17:57





two points: 1) this method works only for binomials (e.g. it will not work for $(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2+y_3^2)$; 2) you must state when the equality holds ($x_1y_2-x_2y_1=0$). Also, you can check this: rgmia.org/papers/v12e/Cauchy-Schwarzinequality.pdf
– farruhota
Aug 31 at 17:57











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Start with the algebraic identity (also known as the Brahmagupta-Fibonacci Identity)
$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term as you did (here you use the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$) to give the inequality:
$$(x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2le(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers. This next step of taking the modulus $|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|$ is unecessary. You already have the Schwarz inequality here. Instead of



$$|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
you only need
$$x_1y_1 + x_2y_2lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
as it doesn't matter whether the $x_i$ or $y_i$ are positive or negative, the Schwarz inequality still holds. Hence the $-b le a le b$ is then not needed, only the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$ is ever used.



The general form of the Schwarz Inequality is then:
$$sum_i=1^nx_iy_ilesqrtsum_i=1^nx_i^2cdotsqrtsum_i=1^ny_i^2$$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Echoing @farruhota s comments-this method only works for binomials as given (I only added the general form for reference).
    – Daniel Buck
    Aug 31 at 19:30

















up vote
0
down vote













$(x_1,x_2)cdot (y_1,y_2)=mid xmidcdotmid ymidcosthetaimplies mid x_1y_1+x_2y_2midle sqrt(x_1^2+x_2^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2)$



Is that ok?






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I don't get what did you do
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 5:21










  • I used the formula for the dot product. Then I used that $costhetale1$. ($theta$ is the angle between $x$ and $y$). It's an alternate proof (I think).
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 5:25










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%2f2899069%2fproof-verification-x-12-x-22y-12-y-22-x-1y-1-x-2y-22-x-1y%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
2
down vote



accepted










Start with the algebraic identity (also known as the Brahmagupta-Fibonacci Identity)
$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term as you did (here you use the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$) to give the inequality:
$$(x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2le(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers. This next step of taking the modulus $|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|$ is unecessary. You already have the Schwarz inequality here. Instead of



$$|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
you only need
$$x_1y_1 + x_2y_2lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
as it doesn't matter whether the $x_i$ or $y_i$ are positive or negative, the Schwarz inequality still holds. Hence the $-b le a le b$ is then not needed, only the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$ is ever used.



The general form of the Schwarz Inequality is then:
$$sum_i=1^nx_iy_ilesqrtsum_i=1^nx_i^2cdotsqrtsum_i=1^ny_i^2$$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Echoing @farruhota s comments-this method only works for binomials as given (I only added the general form for reference).
    – Daniel Buck
    Aug 31 at 19:30














up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Start with the algebraic identity (also known as the Brahmagupta-Fibonacci Identity)
$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term as you did (here you use the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$) to give the inequality:
$$(x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2le(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers. This next step of taking the modulus $|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|$ is unecessary. You already have the Schwarz inequality here. Instead of



$$|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
you only need
$$x_1y_1 + x_2y_2lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
as it doesn't matter whether the $x_i$ or $y_i$ are positive or negative, the Schwarz inequality still holds. Hence the $-b le a le b$ is then not needed, only the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$ is ever used.



The general form of the Schwarz Inequality is then:
$$sum_i=1^nx_iy_ilesqrtsum_i=1^nx_i^2cdotsqrtsum_i=1^ny_i^2$$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Echoing @farruhota s comments-this method only works for binomials as given (I only added the general form for reference).
    – Daniel Buck
    Aug 31 at 19:30












up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






Start with the algebraic identity (also known as the Brahmagupta-Fibonacci Identity)
$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term as you did (here you use the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$) to give the inequality:
$$(x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2le(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers. This next step of taking the modulus $|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|$ is unecessary. You already have the Schwarz inequality here. Instead of



$$|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
you only need
$$x_1y_1 + x_2y_2lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
as it doesn't matter whether the $x_i$ or $y_i$ are positive or negative, the Schwarz inequality still holds. Hence the $-b le a le b$ is then not needed, only the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$ is ever used.



The general form of the Schwarz Inequality is then:
$$sum_i=1^nx_iy_ilesqrtsum_i=1^nx_i^2cdotsqrtsum_i=1^ny_i^2$$






share|cite|improve this answer












Start with the algebraic identity (also known as the Brahmagupta-Fibonacci Identity)
$$(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2) = (x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2 + (x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$$



Then take away the $(x_1y_2 - x_2y_1)^2$ term as you did (here you use the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$) to give the inequality:
$$(x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)^2le(x_1^2 + x_2^2)(y_1^2 + y_2^2)$$



Then take the square root of both sides, since both are positives numbers. This next step of taking the modulus $|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|$ is unecessary. You already have the Schwarz inequality here. Instead of



$$|x_1y_1 + x_2y_2|lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
you only need
$$x_1y_1 + x_2y_2lesqrtx_1^2 + x_2^2cdotsqrty_1^2 + y_2^2$$
as it doesn't matter whether the $x_i$ or $y_i$ are positive or negative, the Schwarz inequality still holds. Hence the $-b le a le b$ is then not needed, only the fact that $a^2ge0$ for all $a$ is ever used.



The general form of the Schwarz Inequality is then:
$$sum_i=1^nx_iy_ilesqrtsum_i=1^nx_i^2cdotsqrtsum_i=1^ny_i^2$$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Aug 31 at 17:52









Daniel Buck

2,6251625




2,6251625











  • Echoing @farruhota s comments-this method only works for binomials as given (I only added the general form for reference).
    – Daniel Buck
    Aug 31 at 19:30
















  • Echoing @farruhota s comments-this method only works for binomials as given (I only added the general form for reference).
    – Daniel Buck
    Aug 31 at 19:30















Echoing @farruhota s comments-this method only works for binomials as given (I only added the general form for reference).
– Daniel Buck
Aug 31 at 19:30




Echoing @farruhota s comments-this method only works for binomials as given (I only added the general form for reference).
– Daniel Buck
Aug 31 at 19:30










up vote
0
down vote













$(x_1,x_2)cdot (y_1,y_2)=mid xmidcdotmid ymidcosthetaimplies mid x_1y_1+x_2y_2midle sqrt(x_1^2+x_2^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2)$



Is that ok?






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I don't get what did you do
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 5:21










  • I used the formula for the dot product. Then I used that $costhetale1$. ($theta$ is the angle between $x$ and $y$). It's an alternate proof (I think).
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 5:25














up vote
0
down vote













$(x_1,x_2)cdot (y_1,y_2)=mid xmidcdotmid ymidcosthetaimplies mid x_1y_1+x_2y_2midle sqrt(x_1^2+x_2^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2)$



Is that ok?






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I don't get what did you do
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 5:21










  • I used the formula for the dot product. Then I used that $costhetale1$. ($theta$ is the angle between $x$ and $y$). It's an alternate proof (I think).
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 5:25












up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









$(x_1,x_2)cdot (y_1,y_2)=mid xmidcdotmid ymidcosthetaimplies mid x_1y_1+x_2y_2midle sqrt(x_1^2+x_2^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2)$



Is that ok?






share|cite|improve this answer














$(x_1,x_2)cdot (y_1,y_2)=mid xmidcdotmid ymidcosthetaimplies mid x_1y_1+x_2y_2midle sqrt(x_1^2+x_2^2)(y_1^2+y_2^2)$



Is that ok?







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 30 at 5:33

























answered Aug 30 at 5:04









Chris Custer

6,3272622




6,3272622











  • I don't get what did you do
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 5:21










  • I used the formula for the dot product. Then I used that $costhetale1$. ($theta$ is the angle between $x$ and $y$). It's an alternate proof (I think).
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 5:25
















  • I don't get what did you do
    – Enigsis
    Aug 30 at 5:21










  • I used the formula for the dot product. Then I used that $costhetale1$. ($theta$ is the angle between $x$ and $y$). It's an alternate proof (I think).
    – Chris Custer
    Aug 30 at 5:25















I don't get what did you do
– Enigsis
Aug 30 at 5:21




I don't get what did you do
– Enigsis
Aug 30 at 5:21












I used the formula for the dot product. Then I used that $costhetale1$. ($theta$ is the angle between $x$ and $y$). It's an alternate proof (I think).
– Chris Custer
Aug 30 at 5:25




I used the formula for the dot product. Then I used that $costhetale1$. ($theta$ is the angle between $x$ and $y$). It's an alternate proof (I think).
– Chris Custer
Aug 30 at 5:25

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2899069%2fproof-verification-x-12-x-22y-12-y-22-x-1y-1-x-2y-22-x-1y%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?