Why do inequalities flip signs? [on hold]









up vote
10
down vote

favorite












Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens? You can do it with examples and it is 'intuitive.' But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy, we just warn students to remember to flip the inequality when




  • multiply or divide by a negative number both sides

$$-2>-3 implies 2 < 3$$



  • take reciprocals of same sign fractions both sides

$$frac34 > frac12 implies frac43 < 2$$











share|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by Tommi Brander, BPP, Xander Henderson, JoeTaxpayer, Benjamin Dickman 2 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is off-topic because it is a mathematical question as contrasted with a question about mathematics education. For a Stack Exchange site for mathematical questions please see Mathematics." – Tommi Brander, BPP, Xander Henderson, JoeTaxpayer, Benjamin Dickman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 1




    See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1543722/…
    – TreFox
    2 days ago










  • But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy --- I was curious about the book I used in high school algebra 1 (actually was the 1970 revised edition), since it was new-math based and heavy with proofs (actually, it was mostly heavy with terminological formalism), and it only gives some numerical examples of how multiplying by a negative number reverses the order and then simply states the results in a "Multiplication Axiom of Order" shaded section.
    – Dave L Renfro
    21 hours ago














up vote
10
down vote

favorite












Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens? You can do it with examples and it is 'intuitive.' But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy, we just warn students to remember to flip the inequality when




  • multiply or divide by a negative number both sides

$$-2>-3 implies 2 < 3$$



  • take reciprocals of same sign fractions both sides

$$frac34 > frac12 implies frac43 < 2$$











share|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by Tommi Brander, BPP, Xander Henderson, JoeTaxpayer, Benjamin Dickman 2 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is off-topic because it is a mathematical question as contrasted with a question about mathematics education. For a Stack Exchange site for mathematical questions please see Mathematics." – Tommi Brander, BPP, Xander Henderson, JoeTaxpayer, Benjamin Dickman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 1




    See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1543722/…
    – TreFox
    2 days ago










  • But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy --- I was curious about the book I used in high school algebra 1 (actually was the 1970 revised edition), since it was new-math based and heavy with proofs (actually, it was mostly heavy with terminological formalism), and it only gives some numerical examples of how multiplying by a negative number reverses the order and then simply states the results in a "Multiplication Axiom of Order" shaded section.
    – Dave L Renfro
    21 hours ago












up vote
10
down vote

favorite









up vote
10
down vote

favorite











Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens? You can do it with examples and it is 'intuitive.' But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy, we just warn students to remember to flip the inequality when




  • multiply or divide by a negative number both sides

$$-2>-3 implies 2 < 3$$



  • take reciprocals of same sign fractions both sides

$$frac34 > frac12 implies frac43 < 2$$











share|improve this question















Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens? You can do it with examples and it is 'intuitive.' But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy, we just warn students to remember to flip the inequality when




  • multiply or divide by a negative number both sides

$$-2>-3 implies 2 < 3$$



  • take reciprocals of same sign fractions both sides

$$frac34 > frac12 implies frac43 < 2$$








proofs






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 11 hours ago









J.G.

1433




1433










asked 2 days ago









Lenny

245110




245110




put on hold as off-topic by Tommi Brander, BPP, Xander Henderson, JoeTaxpayer, Benjamin Dickman 2 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is off-topic because it is a mathematical question as contrasted with a question about mathematics education. For a Stack Exchange site for mathematical questions please see Mathematics." – Tommi Brander, BPP, Xander Henderson, JoeTaxpayer, Benjamin Dickman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




put on hold as off-topic by Tommi Brander, BPP, Xander Henderson, JoeTaxpayer, Benjamin Dickman 2 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is off-topic because it is a mathematical question as contrasted with a question about mathematics education. For a Stack Exchange site for mathematical questions please see Mathematics." – Tommi Brander, BPP, Xander Henderson, JoeTaxpayer, Benjamin Dickman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







  • 1




    See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1543722/…
    – TreFox
    2 days ago










  • But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy --- I was curious about the book I used in high school algebra 1 (actually was the 1970 revised edition), since it was new-math based and heavy with proofs (actually, it was mostly heavy with terminological formalism), and it only gives some numerical examples of how multiplying by a negative number reverses the order and then simply states the results in a "Multiplication Axiom of Order" shaded section.
    – Dave L Renfro
    21 hours ago












  • 1




    See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1543722/…
    – TreFox
    2 days ago










  • But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy --- I was curious about the book I used in high school algebra 1 (actually was the 1970 revised edition), since it was new-math based and heavy with proofs (actually, it was mostly heavy with terminological formalism), and it only gives some numerical examples of how multiplying by a negative number reverses the order and then simply states the results in a "Multiplication Axiom of Order" shaded section.
    – Dave L Renfro
    21 hours ago







1




1




See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1543722/…
– TreFox
2 days ago




See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1543722/…
– TreFox
2 days ago












But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy --- I was curious about the book I used in high school algebra 1 (actually was the 1970 revised edition), since it was new-math based and heavy with proofs (actually, it was mostly heavy with terminological formalism), and it only gives some numerical examples of how multiplying by a negative number reverses the order and then simply states the results in a "Multiplication Axiom of Order" shaded section.
– Dave L Renfro
21 hours ago




But the proof of why this happens is never shown in pedagogy --- I was curious about the book I used in high school algebra 1 (actually was the 1970 revised edition), since it was new-math based and heavy with proofs (actually, it was mostly heavy with terminological formalism), and it only gives some numerical examples of how multiplying by a negative number reverses the order and then simply states the results in a "Multiplication Axiom of Order" shaded section.
– Dave L Renfro
21 hours ago










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
37
down vote



accepted










I'm slightly concerned that




Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens?




is a purely mathematical question, but since you write "we just warn students" I will assume that this question is purposefully asked here on Math Educators StackExchange.



As to a proof:



Given $a>b$, subtract $a$ from both sides: $0 > b-a$.



Next, subtract $b$ from both sides: $-b > -a$.



Note that this final inequality is equivalent to $-a < -b$.



And so we have proved: If $a > b$, then $-a < -b$.






share|improve this answer
















  • 4




    Sweet, and the same works for reciprocation (if $a<b$ are of the same sign, divide by their strictly positive product $ab$)
    – Vandermonde
    2 days ago






  • 3




    thanks, I get that the concern for proof is technically mathematical but it isn't covered in any proof for any math courses since it's just elementary and assumed to just be understood (in the US anyways). I'm just curious how to show it if some student ever asks.
    – Lenny
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @Lenny This sort of thing is often proved in an introductory real analysis course.
    – Steven Gubkin
    yesterday










  • The number of upvotes here is not proportional to the quality of my post. I hope those who are satisfied by this explanation will read my past answers, as well as answers from other users, which have generally involved significantly more work!
    – Benjamin Dickman
    2 hours ago

















up vote
8
down vote













Depending on the context and the previous curriculum, the following might work:



  1. "less than" means "to the left of" on the number line.

  2. Multiplying by a negative number flips numbers around 0.

  3. Thus, "left of" becomes "right of", or "greater than".





share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    This works for reciprocals because you flip (say) the positive reals around 1 (and squash all the numbers greater than one into the unit interval, and stretch the unit interval out to infinity). That's harder to show on a blackboard, but makes for a nice visual if you can find a way to demo it.
    – Kevin
    2 days ago











  • This seems like a visual translation of the intuitive understanding, but the question was asking for a mathematical explanation.
    – Barmar
    yesterday










  • If inequalities are defined on the number line and multiplication by -1 as flipping, this is 100% mathematical.
    – Jasper
    yesterday

















up vote
5
down vote













For multiplying or dividing by -1...
$$beginalign
a&>b\
a-b&>0\
\-(a-b)&<0\
-a&<-b
endalign
$$

(You can then extended to arbitrary negative numbers by multiplying or dividing by the [positive] magnitude.)



For taking reciprocals... assuming $ab>0$



$$beginalign
a&>b\
left(frac1abright)a&>left(frac1abright)b\
frac1b&>frac1a\
frac1a&<frac1b\
endalign
$$






share|improve this answer








New contributor




robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • 1




    You might want to add some words in the slot where you flipped the sign from > 0 to < 0. My first reaction was that you just used the fact you were trying to prove. Anyway welcome to the site!
    – Chris Cunningham
    yesterday






  • 2




    Thanks... when posting I tried (unsuccessfully) to use intertext... so I tried a lineskip and went with that... avoiding further delay. Luckily(?), my post came in 2 minutes before the accepted answer by @Benjamin.
    – robphy
    yesterday










  • @robphy What is the point of the third step? You can go straight from the second to the fourth by subtracting $a$ from both sides and it doesn't need an additional rule that $a > 0 Rightarrow -a < 0$.
    – Solomonoff's Secret
    yesterday










  • In the spirit of my second proof, I should have subtracted the sum (a+b) from the first line. But I wanted to explicitly do the "multiplication by -1" because that subtraction move might not be obvious to a novice. In the spirit of my first proof, I should have divided both sides by b, then taken the reciprocal explicitly so that a/b > 1 becomes b/a <1. Then divide both sides by b to get 1/a < 1/b.
    – robphy
    yesterday


















up vote
5
down vote













Perhaps one way to see (and explain intuitively to children) the "multiply by $-1$ part" is the following. Imagine your two numbers, $a$ and $b$, lying on the numberline. Multiplying by $-1$ is like 'rotating the numberline through 180°': imagine it's a straight metal pole, lying flat on the ground; pick it up by the middle, and rotate it 'long ways' (ie not 'barrel roll') 180°. (One only needs to consider the line segment $[-maxa,b,maxa,b]$ for this, in case you get a smart-arse saying you can't move something of infinite mass!)
It is hopefully clear to most people why the point that was to the right is now to the left.



This is only a visual intuition -- one of course needs to make this a rigorous proof, and the other answers do this -- however such intuition can often be valuable to early-learners.



A similar, but slightly less clean, statement can be made regarding inversion: take just the positive real axis $(0,infty)$; rotate it around the number $1$. (Since, again, we can look at $(0,M)$ for say $M = a + b$ (with $a,b > 0$), one could imagine some sort of ellipse.)



I would draw graphics to illustrate... if only I were better at doing so!



PS. In complex analysis, multiplying by $-1$ really is rotating by 180°!






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    In a more general case this happens if you deal with a strictly monotonic decreasing function like f(x) = -x or f(x) = 1/x (in the positive or negative numbers).






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

















    • Is monotonic monotonous? Just a humorous question.
      – JosephDoggie
      yesterday










    • @ChrisCunningham Yes, you're right of course. That's what you get for expecting google to treat the term as an entity.
      – user10545
      yesterday

















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Which would you rather I give you: 10 cookies or 8 cookies? Okay, now which would you rather have me take away: 10 cookies, or 8 cookies? Adding 10 gives you a larger number than adding 8, but subtracting 10 means leaves you with a smaller number than subtracting 8 does. Similarly, multiplying by 3 gives you more than multiplying by 2, but dividing by 3 gives you less than dividing by 2.






    share|improve this answer




















    • Moral plus one.
      – guest
      yesterday

















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    I can't help but feel this question highlights the self defeating nature of teaching maths via "cheat tricks". In my opinion it is probably best not to teach students ever to just "switch the sign" of the inequality in an arbitrary manner, which can be confusing.



    As elegantly illustrated by @Benjamin_Dickman's proof, the alternative notation
    $$a>b quad textimplies quad -b>-a$$
    is much clearer, and invites the student to treat the inequality as a fixed equivalence in the same way they would treat an equality.



    I feel it might be less confusing for students were this convention adopted, and the inequality was never reversed but for as a last resort. That would mean one less "rule" for students to "remember".






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.
























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      I see it as a combination of the following, when we assume a field with a positive cone, and trichotomy. We want to show that if $a<b$ and $c<0$, then $cb<ac$.



      • It is natural to expect the product of positive numbers to be positive.


      • We denote the additive inverse of $a$ by $-a$.


      • We note, from $a+(-a)=0$, that $-(-a)=a$.


      • We note that $(-a)b=-(ab)$. Proof: $(-a)b+ab=(-a+a)b=0times b=0$ (one can earlier deduce that multiplication by $0$ is $0$ from distributivity).


      • Now $(-a)(-b)=-(a(-b))=-((-b)a)=-(-ab)=ab$.


      • From the above we conclude that the product of two negative numbers is positive, and that a positive number times a negative is negative.


      • Now if $a<b$ and $c<0$, we have $b-a>0$ and $-c>0$, so $(-c)(b-a)>0$. That is, $-cb+ac>0$, or $cb<ac$.






      share|improve this answer



























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        Other answers address multiplication by a negative number on both sides better than I can. For taking reciprocals of both sides, it may be helpful to examine why we know we can do that and maintain equality. This is one simple demonstration:



        Starting with the equation $fracab=fraccd$,



        we can multiply both sides by $fracdc$, giving $fracadbc=fraccddc$, which simplifies to $fracacbd=1$.



        We can then do the same with $fracba$, giving $fracbadabc=fracbacdot 1$, which simplifies to $fracdc=fracba$.



        This shows that if two numbers are equal, then their reciprocals are equal. However, notice that we didn't just turn each number into its reciprocal. We also flipped their positions: the $fracab$ on the left became $fracba$, but on the right. When we're talking about equality, this is inconsequential, since equality is symmetric. However, if you take the same example with $=$ replaced with $>$ or $<$, the fact that the values "switched places" does matter.



        This demonstration also shows why the sign only flips when both sides have the same sign. If they have different signs, then their reciprocals also have different signs, and exactly one of the multiplications by a reciprocal causes the inequality to flip. So you could argue that it does flip, but then it flips again, making it seem like it hasn't flipped. Similarly, if both sides are negative, it flips a total of three times, which has the same result as flipping once.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.
























          9 Answers
          9






          active

          oldest

          votes








          9 Answers
          9






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          37
          down vote



          accepted










          I'm slightly concerned that




          Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens?




          is a purely mathematical question, but since you write "we just warn students" I will assume that this question is purposefully asked here on Math Educators StackExchange.



          As to a proof:



          Given $a>b$, subtract $a$ from both sides: $0 > b-a$.



          Next, subtract $b$ from both sides: $-b > -a$.



          Note that this final inequality is equivalent to $-a < -b$.



          And so we have proved: If $a > b$, then $-a < -b$.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 4




            Sweet, and the same works for reciprocation (if $a<b$ are of the same sign, divide by their strictly positive product $ab$)
            – Vandermonde
            2 days ago






          • 3




            thanks, I get that the concern for proof is technically mathematical but it isn't covered in any proof for any math courses since it's just elementary and assumed to just be understood (in the US anyways). I'm just curious how to show it if some student ever asks.
            – Lenny
            2 days ago






          • 3




            @Lenny This sort of thing is often proved in an introductory real analysis course.
            – Steven Gubkin
            yesterday










          • The number of upvotes here is not proportional to the quality of my post. I hope those who are satisfied by this explanation will read my past answers, as well as answers from other users, which have generally involved significantly more work!
            – Benjamin Dickman
            2 hours ago














          up vote
          37
          down vote



          accepted










          I'm slightly concerned that




          Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens?




          is a purely mathematical question, but since you write "we just warn students" I will assume that this question is purposefully asked here on Math Educators StackExchange.



          As to a proof:



          Given $a>b$, subtract $a$ from both sides: $0 > b-a$.



          Next, subtract $b$ from both sides: $-b > -a$.



          Note that this final inequality is equivalent to $-a < -b$.



          And so we have proved: If $a > b$, then $-a < -b$.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 4




            Sweet, and the same works for reciprocation (if $a<b$ are of the same sign, divide by their strictly positive product $ab$)
            – Vandermonde
            2 days ago






          • 3




            thanks, I get that the concern for proof is technically mathematical but it isn't covered in any proof for any math courses since it's just elementary and assumed to just be understood (in the US anyways). I'm just curious how to show it if some student ever asks.
            – Lenny
            2 days ago






          • 3




            @Lenny This sort of thing is often proved in an introductory real analysis course.
            – Steven Gubkin
            yesterday










          • The number of upvotes here is not proportional to the quality of my post. I hope those who are satisfied by this explanation will read my past answers, as well as answers from other users, which have generally involved significantly more work!
            – Benjamin Dickman
            2 hours ago












          up vote
          37
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          37
          down vote



          accepted






          I'm slightly concerned that




          Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens?




          is a purely mathematical question, but since you write "we just warn students" I will assume that this question is purposefully asked here on Math Educators StackExchange.



          As to a proof:



          Given $a>b$, subtract $a$ from both sides: $0 > b-a$.



          Next, subtract $b$ from both sides: $-b > -a$.



          Note that this final inequality is equivalent to $-a < -b$.



          And so we have proved: If $a > b$, then $-a < -b$.






          share|improve this answer












          I'm slightly concerned that




          Is there a mathematical reason (like a proof) of why this happens?




          is a purely mathematical question, but since you write "we just warn students" I will assume that this question is purposefully asked here on Math Educators StackExchange.



          As to a proof:



          Given $a>b$, subtract $a$ from both sides: $0 > b-a$.



          Next, subtract $b$ from both sides: $-b > -a$.



          Note that this final inequality is equivalent to $-a < -b$.



          And so we have proved: If $a > b$, then $-a < -b$.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          Benjamin Dickman

          15.7k22892




          15.7k22892







          • 4




            Sweet, and the same works for reciprocation (if $a<b$ are of the same sign, divide by their strictly positive product $ab$)
            – Vandermonde
            2 days ago






          • 3




            thanks, I get that the concern for proof is technically mathematical but it isn't covered in any proof for any math courses since it's just elementary and assumed to just be understood (in the US anyways). I'm just curious how to show it if some student ever asks.
            – Lenny
            2 days ago






          • 3




            @Lenny This sort of thing is often proved in an introductory real analysis course.
            – Steven Gubkin
            yesterday










          • The number of upvotes here is not proportional to the quality of my post. I hope those who are satisfied by this explanation will read my past answers, as well as answers from other users, which have generally involved significantly more work!
            – Benjamin Dickman
            2 hours ago












          • 4




            Sweet, and the same works for reciprocation (if $a<b$ are of the same sign, divide by their strictly positive product $ab$)
            – Vandermonde
            2 days ago






          • 3




            thanks, I get that the concern for proof is technically mathematical but it isn't covered in any proof for any math courses since it's just elementary and assumed to just be understood (in the US anyways). I'm just curious how to show it if some student ever asks.
            – Lenny
            2 days ago






          • 3




            @Lenny This sort of thing is often proved in an introductory real analysis course.
            – Steven Gubkin
            yesterday










          • The number of upvotes here is not proportional to the quality of my post. I hope those who are satisfied by this explanation will read my past answers, as well as answers from other users, which have generally involved significantly more work!
            – Benjamin Dickman
            2 hours ago







          4




          4




          Sweet, and the same works for reciprocation (if $a<b$ are of the same sign, divide by their strictly positive product $ab$)
          – Vandermonde
          2 days ago




          Sweet, and the same works for reciprocation (if $a<b$ are of the same sign, divide by their strictly positive product $ab$)
          – Vandermonde
          2 days ago




          3




          3




          thanks, I get that the concern for proof is technically mathematical but it isn't covered in any proof for any math courses since it's just elementary and assumed to just be understood (in the US anyways). I'm just curious how to show it if some student ever asks.
          – Lenny
          2 days ago




          thanks, I get that the concern for proof is technically mathematical but it isn't covered in any proof for any math courses since it's just elementary and assumed to just be understood (in the US anyways). I'm just curious how to show it if some student ever asks.
          – Lenny
          2 days ago




          3




          3




          @Lenny This sort of thing is often proved in an introductory real analysis course.
          – Steven Gubkin
          yesterday




          @Lenny This sort of thing is often proved in an introductory real analysis course.
          – Steven Gubkin
          yesterday












          The number of upvotes here is not proportional to the quality of my post. I hope those who are satisfied by this explanation will read my past answers, as well as answers from other users, which have generally involved significantly more work!
          – Benjamin Dickman
          2 hours ago




          The number of upvotes here is not proportional to the quality of my post. I hope those who are satisfied by this explanation will read my past answers, as well as answers from other users, which have generally involved significantly more work!
          – Benjamin Dickman
          2 hours ago










          up vote
          8
          down vote













          Depending on the context and the previous curriculum, the following might work:



          1. "less than" means "to the left of" on the number line.

          2. Multiplying by a negative number flips numbers around 0.

          3. Thus, "left of" becomes "right of", or "greater than".





          share|improve this answer
















          • 1




            This works for reciprocals because you flip (say) the positive reals around 1 (and squash all the numbers greater than one into the unit interval, and stretch the unit interval out to infinity). That's harder to show on a blackboard, but makes for a nice visual if you can find a way to demo it.
            – Kevin
            2 days ago











          • This seems like a visual translation of the intuitive understanding, but the question was asking for a mathematical explanation.
            – Barmar
            yesterday










          • If inequalities are defined on the number line and multiplication by -1 as flipping, this is 100% mathematical.
            – Jasper
            yesterday














          up vote
          8
          down vote













          Depending on the context and the previous curriculum, the following might work:



          1. "less than" means "to the left of" on the number line.

          2. Multiplying by a negative number flips numbers around 0.

          3. Thus, "left of" becomes "right of", or "greater than".





          share|improve this answer
















          • 1




            This works for reciprocals because you flip (say) the positive reals around 1 (and squash all the numbers greater than one into the unit interval, and stretch the unit interval out to infinity). That's harder to show on a blackboard, but makes for a nice visual if you can find a way to demo it.
            – Kevin
            2 days ago











          • This seems like a visual translation of the intuitive understanding, but the question was asking for a mathematical explanation.
            – Barmar
            yesterday










          • If inequalities are defined on the number line and multiplication by -1 as flipping, this is 100% mathematical.
            – Jasper
            yesterday












          up vote
          8
          down vote










          up vote
          8
          down vote









          Depending on the context and the previous curriculum, the following might work:



          1. "less than" means "to the left of" on the number line.

          2. Multiplying by a negative number flips numbers around 0.

          3. Thus, "left of" becomes "right of", or "greater than".





          share|improve this answer












          Depending on the context and the previous curriculum, the following might work:



          1. "less than" means "to the left of" on the number line.

          2. Multiplying by a negative number flips numbers around 0.

          3. Thus, "left of" becomes "right of", or "greater than".






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          Jasper

          49327




          49327







          • 1




            This works for reciprocals because you flip (say) the positive reals around 1 (and squash all the numbers greater than one into the unit interval, and stretch the unit interval out to infinity). That's harder to show on a blackboard, but makes for a nice visual if you can find a way to demo it.
            – Kevin
            2 days ago











          • This seems like a visual translation of the intuitive understanding, but the question was asking for a mathematical explanation.
            – Barmar
            yesterday










          • If inequalities are defined on the number line and multiplication by -1 as flipping, this is 100% mathematical.
            – Jasper
            yesterday












          • 1




            This works for reciprocals because you flip (say) the positive reals around 1 (and squash all the numbers greater than one into the unit interval, and stretch the unit interval out to infinity). That's harder to show on a blackboard, but makes for a nice visual if you can find a way to demo it.
            – Kevin
            2 days ago











          • This seems like a visual translation of the intuitive understanding, but the question was asking for a mathematical explanation.
            – Barmar
            yesterday










          • If inequalities are defined on the number line and multiplication by -1 as flipping, this is 100% mathematical.
            – Jasper
            yesterday







          1




          1




          This works for reciprocals because you flip (say) the positive reals around 1 (and squash all the numbers greater than one into the unit interval, and stretch the unit interval out to infinity). That's harder to show on a blackboard, but makes for a nice visual if you can find a way to demo it.
          – Kevin
          2 days ago





          This works for reciprocals because you flip (say) the positive reals around 1 (and squash all the numbers greater than one into the unit interval, and stretch the unit interval out to infinity). That's harder to show on a blackboard, but makes for a nice visual if you can find a way to demo it.
          – Kevin
          2 days ago













          This seems like a visual translation of the intuitive understanding, but the question was asking for a mathematical explanation.
          – Barmar
          yesterday




          This seems like a visual translation of the intuitive understanding, but the question was asking for a mathematical explanation.
          – Barmar
          yesterday












          If inequalities are defined on the number line and multiplication by -1 as flipping, this is 100% mathematical.
          – Jasper
          yesterday




          If inequalities are defined on the number line and multiplication by -1 as flipping, this is 100% mathematical.
          – Jasper
          yesterday










          up vote
          5
          down vote













          For multiplying or dividing by -1...
          $$beginalign
          a&>b\
          a-b&>0\
          \-(a-b)&<0\
          -a&<-b
          endalign
          $$

          (You can then extended to arbitrary negative numbers by multiplying or dividing by the [positive] magnitude.)



          For taking reciprocals... assuming $ab>0$



          $$beginalign
          a&>b\
          left(frac1abright)a&>left(frac1abright)b\
          frac1b&>frac1a\
          frac1a&<frac1b\
          endalign
          $$






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.













          • 1




            You might want to add some words in the slot where you flipped the sign from > 0 to < 0. My first reaction was that you just used the fact you were trying to prove. Anyway welcome to the site!
            – Chris Cunningham
            yesterday






          • 2




            Thanks... when posting I tried (unsuccessfully) to use intertext... so I tried a lineskip and went with that... avoiding further delay. Luckily(?), my post came in 2 minutes before the accepted answer by @Benjamin.
            – robphy
            yesterday










          • @robphy What is the point of the third step? You can go straight from the second to the fourth by subtracting $a$ from both sides and it doesn't need an additional rule that $a > 0 Rightarrow -a < 0$.
            – Solomonoff's Secret
            yesterday










          • In the spirit of my second proof, I should have subtracted the sum (a+b) from the first line. But I wanted to explicitly do the "multiplication by -1" because that subtraction move might not be obvious to a novice. In the spirit of my first proof, I should have divided both sides by b, then taken the reciprocal explicitly so that a/b > 1 becomes b/a <1. Then divide both sides by b to get 1/a < 1/b.
            – robphy
            yesterday















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          For multiplying or dividing by -1...
          $$beginalign
          a&>b\
          a-b&>0\
          \-(a-b)&<0\
          -a&<-b
          endalign
          $$

          (You can then extended to arbitrary negative numbers by multiplying or dividing by the [positive] magnitude.)



          For taking reciprocals... assuming $ab>0$



          $$beginalign
          a&>b\
          left(frac1abright)a&>left(frac1abright)b\
          frac1b&>frac1a\
          frac1a&<frac1b\
          endalign
          $$






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.













          • 1




            You might want to add some words in the slot where you flipped the sign from > 0 to < 0. My first reaction was that you just used the fact you were trying to prove. Anyway welcome to the site!
            – Chris Cunningham
            yesterday






          • 2




            Thanks... when posting I tried (unsuccessfully) to use intertext... so I tried a lineskip and went with that... avoiding further delay. Luckily(?), my post came in 2 minutes before the accepted answer by @Benjamin.
            – robphy
            yesterday










          • @robphy What is the point of the third step? You can go straight from the second to the fourth by subtracting $a$ from both sides and it doesn't need an additional rule that $a > 0 Rightarrow -a < 0$.
            – Solomonoff's Secret
            yesterday










          • In the spirit of my second proof, I should have subtracted the sum (a+b) from the first line. But I wanted to explicitly do the "multiplication by -1" because that subtraction move might not be obvious to a novice. In the spirit of my first proof, I should have divided both sides by b, then taken the reciprocal explicitly so that a/b > 1 becomes b/a <1. Then divide both sides by b to get 1/a < 1/b.
            – robphy
            yesterday













          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          For multiplying or dividing by -1...
          $$beginalign
          a&>b\
          a-b&>0\
          \-(a-b)&<0\
          -a&<-b
          endalign
          $$

          (You can then extended to arbitrary negative numbers by multiplying or dividing by the [positive] magnitude.)



          For taking reciprocals... assuming $ab>0$



          $$beginalign
          a&>b\
          left(frac1abright)a&>left(frac1abright)b\
          frac1b&>frac1a\
          frac1a&<frac1b\
          endalign
          $$






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          For multiplying or dividing by -1...
          $$beginalign
          a&>b\
          a-b&>0\
          \-(a-b)&<0\
          -a&<-b
          endalign
          $$

          (You can then extended to arbitrary negative numbers by multiplying or dividing by the [positive] magnitude.)



          For taking reciprocals... assuming $ab>0$



          $$beginalign
          a&>b\
          left(frac1abright)a&>left(frac1abright)b\
          frac1b&>frac1a\
          frac1a&<frac1b\
          endalign
          $$







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 2 days ago









          robphy

          1511




          1511




          New contributor




          robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          robphy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.







          • 1




            You might want to add some words in the slot where you flipped the sign from > 0 to < 0. My first reaction was that you just used the fact you were trying to prove. Anyway welcome to the site!
            – Chris Cunningham
            yesterday






          • 2




            Thanks... when posting I tried (unsuccessfully) to use intertext... so I tried a lineskip and went with that... avoiding further delay. Luckily(?), my post came in 2 minutes before the accepted answer by @Benjamin.
            – robphy
            yesterday










          • @robphy What is the point of the third step? You can go straight from the second to the fourth by subtracting $a$ from both sides and it doesn't need an additional rule that $a > 0 Rightarrow -a < 0$.
            – Solomonoff's Secret
            yesterday










          • In the spirit of my second proof, I should have subtracted the sum (a+b) from the first line. But I wanted to explicitly do the "multiplication by -1" because that subtraction move might not be obvious to a novice. In the spirit of my first proof, I should have divided both sides by b, then taken the reciprocal explicitly so that a/b > 1 becomes b/a <1. Then divide both sides by b to get 1/a < 1/b.
            – robphy
            yesterday













          • 1




            You might want to add some words in the slot where you flipped the sign from > 0 to < 0. My first reaction was that you just used the fact you were trying to prove. Anyway welcome to the site!
            – Chris Cunningham
            yesterday






          • 2




            Thanks... when posting I tried (unsuccessfully) to use intertext... so I tried a lineskip and went with that... avoiding further delay. Luckily(?), my post came in 2 minutes before the accepted answer by @Benjamin.
            – robphy
            yesterday










          • @robphy What is the point of the third step? You can go straight from the second to the fourth by subtracting $a$ from both sides and it doesn't need an additional rule that $a > 0 Rightarrow -a < 0$.
            – Solomonoff's Secret
            yesterday










          • In the spirit of my second proof, I should have subtracted the sum (a+b) from the first line. But I wanted to explicitly do the "multiplication by -1" because that subtraction move might not be obvious to a novice. In the spirit of my first proof, I should have divided both sides by b, then taken the reciprocal explicitly so that a/b > 1 becomes b/a <1. Then divide both sides by b to get 1/a < 1/b.
            – robphy
            yesterday








          1




          1




          You might want to add some words in the slot where you flipped the sign from > 0 to < 0. My first reaction was that you just used the fact you were trying to prove. Anyway welcome to the site!
          – Chris Cunningham
          yesterday




          You might want to add some words in the slot where you flipped the sign from > 0 to < 0. My first reaction was that you just used the fact you were trying to prove. Anyway welcome to the site!
          – Chris Cunningham
          yesterday




          2




          2




          Thanks... when posting I tried (unsuccessfully) to use intertext... so I tried a lineskip and went with that... avoiding further delay. Luckily(?), my post came in 2 minutes before the accepted answer by @Benjamin.
          – robphy
          yesterday




          Thanks... when posting I tried (unsuccessfully) to use intertext... so I tried a lineskip and went with that... avoiding further delay. Luckily(?), my post came in 2 minutes before the accepted answer by @Benjamin.
          – robphy
          yesterday












          @robphy What is the point of the third step? You can go straight from the second to the fourth by subtracting $a$ from both sides and it doesn't need an additional rule that $a > 0 Rightarrow -a < 0$.
          – Solomonoff's Secret
          yesterday




          @robphy What is the point of the third step? You can go straight from the second to the fourth by subtracting $a$ from both sides and it doesn't need an additional rule that $a > 0 Rightarrow -a < 0$.
          – Solomonoff's Secret
          yesterday












          In the spirit of my second proof, I should have subtracted the sum (a+b) from the first line. But I wanted to explicitly do the "multiplication by -1" because that subtraction move might not be obvious to a novice. In the spirit of my first proof, I should have divided both sides by b, then taken the reciprocal explicitly so that a/b > 1 becomes b/a <1. Then divide both sides by b to get 1/a < 1/b.
          – robphy
          yesterday





          In the spirit of my second proof, I should have subtracted the sum (a+b) from the first line. But I wanted to explicitly do the "multiplication by -1" because that subtraction move might not be obvious to a novice. In the spirit of my first proof, I should have divided both sides by b, then taken the reciprocal explicitly so that a/b > 1 becomes b/a <1. Then divide both sides by b to get 1/a < 1/b.
          – robphy
          yesterday











          up vote
          5
          down vote













          Perhaps one way to see (and explain intuitively to children) the "multiply by $-1$ part" is the following. Imagine your two numbers, $a$ and $b$, lying on the numberline. Multiplying by $-1$ is like 'rotating the numberline through 180°': imagine it's a straight metal pole, lying flat on the ground; pick it up by the middle, and rotate it 'long ways' (ie not 'barrel roll') 180°. (One only needs to consider the line segment $[-maxa,b,maxa,b]$ for this, in case you get a smart-arse saying you can't move something of infinite mass!)
          It is hopefully clear to most people why the point that was to the right is now to the left.



          This is only a visual intuition -- one of course needs to make this a rigorous proof, and the other answers do this -- however such intuition can often be valuable to early-learners.



          A similar, but slightly less clean, statement can be made regarding inversion: take just the positive real axis $(0,infty)$; rotate it around the number $1$. (Since, again, we can look at $(0,M)$ for say $M = a + b$ (with $a,b > 0$), one could imagine some sort of ellipse.)



          I would draw graphics to illustrate... if only I were better at doing so!



          PS. In complex analysis, multiplying by $-1$ really is rotating by 180°!






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





















            up vote
            5
            down vote













            Perhaps one way to see (and explain intuitively to children) the "multiply by $-1$ part" is the following. Imagine your two numbers, $a$ and $b$, lying on the numberline. Multiplying by $-1$ is like 'rotating the numberline through 180°': imagine it's a straight metal pole, lying flat on the ground; pick it up by the middle, and rotate it 'long ways' (ie not 'barrel roll') 180°. (One only needs to consider the line segment $[-maxa,b,maxa,b]$ for this, in case you get a smart-arse saying you can't move something of infinite mass!)
            It is hopefully clear to most people why the point that was to the right is now to the left.



            This is only a visual intuition -- one of course needs to make this a rigorous proof, and the other answers do this -- however such intuition can often be valuable to early-learners.



            A similar, but slightly less clean, statement can be made regarding inversion: take just the positive real axis $(0,infty)$; rotate it around the number $1$. (Since, again, we can look at $(0,M)$ for say $M = a + b$ (with $a,b > 0$), one could imagine some sort of ellipse.)



            I would draw graphics to illustrate... if only I were better at doing so!



            PS. In complex analysis, multiplying by $-1$ really is rotating by 180°!






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.



















              up vote
              5
              down vote










              up vote
              5
              down vote









              Perhaps one way to see (and explain intuitively to children) the "multiply by $-1$ part" is the following. Imagine your two numbers, $a$ and $b$, lying on the numberline. Multiplying by $-1$ is like 'rotating the numberline through 180°': imagine it's a straight metal pole, lying flat on the ground; pick it up by the middle, and rotate it 'long ways' (ie not 'barrel roll') 180°. (One only needs to consider the line segment $[-maxa,b,maxa,b]$ for this, in case you get a smart-arse saying you can't move something of infinite mass!)
              It is hopefully clear to most people why the point that was to the right is now to the left.



              This is only a visual intuition -- one of course needs to make this a rigorous proof, and the other answers do this -- however such intuition can often be valuable to early-learners.



              A similar, but slightly less clean, statement can be made regarding inversion: take just the positive real axis $(0,infty)$; rotate it around the number $1$. (Since, again, we can look at $(0,M)$ for say $M = a + b$ (with $a,b > 0$), one could imagine some sort of ellipse.)



              I would draw graphics to illustrate... if only I were better at doing so!



              PS. In complex analysis, multiplying by $-1$ really is rotating by 180°!






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              Perhaps one way to see (and explain intuitively to children) the "multiply by $-1$ part" is the following. Imagine your two numbers, $a$ and $b$, lying on the numberline. Multiplying by $-1$ is like 'rotating the numberline through 180°': imagine it's a straight metal pole, lying flat on the ground; pick it up by the middle, and rotate it 'long ways' (ie not 'barrel roll') 180°. (One only needs to consider the line segment $[-maxa,b,maxa,b]$ for this, in case you get a smart-arse saying you can't move something of infinite mass!)
              It is hopefully clear to most people why the point that was to the right is now to the left.



              This is only a visual intuition -- one of course needs to make this a rigorous proof, and the other answers do this -- however such intuition can often be valuable to early-learners.



              A similar, but slightly less clean, statement can be made regarding inversion: take just the positive real axis $(0,infty)$; rotate it around the number $1$. (Since, again, we can look at $(0,M)$ for say $M = a + b$ (with $a,b > 0$), one could imagine some sort of ellipse.)



              I would draw graphics to illustrate... if only I were better at doing so!



              PS. In complex analysis, multiplying by $-1$ really is rotating by 180°!







              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited yesterday





















              New contributor




              Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              answered yesterday









              Sam T

              1512




              1512




              New contributor




              Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





              New contributor





              Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              Sam T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote













                  In a more general case this happens if you deal with a strictly monotonic decreasing function like f(x) = -x or f(x) = 1/x (in the positive or negative numbers).






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.

















                  • Is monotonic monotonous? Just a humorous question.
                    – JosephDoggie
                    yesterday










                  • @ChrisCunningham Yes, you're right of course. That's what you get for expecting google to treat the term as an entity.
                    – user10545
                    yesterday














                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote













                  In a more general case this happens if you deal with a strictly monotonic decreasing function like f(x) = -x or f(x) = 1/x (in the positive or negative numbers).






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.

















                  • Is monotonic monotonous? Just a humorous question.
                    – JosephDoggie
                    yesterday










                  • @ChrisCunningham Yes, you're right of course. That's what you get for expecting google to treat the term as an entity.
                    – user10545
                    yesterday












                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  In a more general case this happens if you deal with a strictly monotonic decreasing function like f(x) = -x or f(x) = 1/x (in the positive or negative numbers).






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  In a more general case this happens if you deal with a strictly monotonic decreasing function like f(x) = -x or f(x) = 1/x (in the positive or negative numbers).







                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited yesterday





















                  New contributor




                  user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered yesterday









                  user10545

                  213




                  213




                  New contributor




                  user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  user10545 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.











                  • Is monotonic monotonous? Just a humorous question.
                    – JosephDoggie
                    yesterday










                  • @ChrisCunningham Yes, you're right of course. That's what you get for expecting google to treat the term as an entity.
                    – user10545
                    yesterday
















                  • Is monotonic monotonous? Just a humorous question.
                    – JosephDoggie
                    yesterday










                  • @ChrisCunningham Yes, you're right of course. That's what you get for expecting google to treat the term as an entity.
                    – user10545
                    yesterday















                  Is monotonic monotonous? Just a humorous question.
                  – JosephDoggie
                  yesterday




                  Is monotonic monotonous? Just a humorous question.
                  – JosephDoggie
                  yesterday












                  @ChrisCunningham Yes, you're right of course. That's what you get for expecting google to treat the term as an entity.
                  – user10545
                  yesterday




                  @ChrisCunningham Yes, you're right of course. That's what you get for expecting google to treat the term as an entity.
                  – user10545
                  yesterday










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  Which would you rather I give you: 10 cookies or 8 cookies? Okay, now which would you rather have me take away: 10 cookies, or 8 cookies? Adding 10 gives you a larger number than adding 8, but subtracting 10 means leaves you with a smaller number than subtracting 8 does. Similarly, multiplying by 3 gives you more than multiplying by 2, but dividing by 3 gives you less than dividing by 2.






                  share|improve this answer




















                  • Moral plus one.
                    – guest
                    yesterday














                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  Which would you rather I give you: 10 cookies or 8 cookies? Okay, now which would you rather have me take away: 10 cookies, or 8 cookies? Adding 10 gives you a larger number than adding 8, but subtracting 10 means leaves you with a smaller number than subtracting 8 does. Similarly, multiplying by 3 gives you more than multiplying by 2, but dividing by 3 gives you less than dividing by 2.






                  share|improve this answer




















                  • Moral plus one.
                    – guest
                    yesterday












                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  Which would you rather I give you: 10 cookies or 8 cookies? Okay, now which would you rather have me take away: 10 cookies, or 8 cookies? Adding 10 gives you a larger number than adding 8, but subtracting 10 means leaves you with a smaller number than subtracting 8 does. Similarly, multiplying by 3 gives you more than multiplying by 2, but dividing by 3 gives you less than dividing by 2.






                  share|improve this answer












                  Which would you rather I give you: 10 cookies or 8 cookies? Okay, now which would you rather have me take away: 10 cookies, or 8 cookies? Adding 10 gives you a larger number than adding 8, but subtracting 10 means leaves you with a smaller number than subtracting 8 does. Similarly, multiplying by 3 gives you more than multiplying by 2, but dividing by 3 gives you less than dividing by 2.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered yesterday









                  Acccumulation

                  3222




                  3222











                  • Moral plus one.
                    – guest
                    yesterday
















                  • Moral plus one.
                    – guest
                    yesterday















                  Moral plus one.
                  – guest
                  yesterday




                  Moral plus one.
                  – guest
                  yesterday










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  I can't help but feel this question highlights the self defeating nature of teaching maths via "cheat tricks". In my opinion it is probably best not to teach students ever to just "switch the sign" of the inequality in an arbitrary manner, which can be confusing.



                  As elegantly illustrated by @Benjamin_Dickman's proof, the alternative notation
                  $$a>b quad textimplies quad -b>-a$$
                  is much clearer, and invites the student to treat the inequality as a fixed equivalence in the same way they would treat an equality.



                  I feel it might be less confusing for students were this convention adopted, and the inequality was never reversed but for as a last resort. That would mean one less "rule" for students to "remember".






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    I can't help but feel this question highlights the self defeating nature of teaching maths via "cheat tricks". In my opinion it is probably best not to teach students ever to just "switch the sign" of the inequality in an arbitrary manner, which can be confusing.



                    As elegantly illustrated by @Benjamin_Dickman's proof, the alternative notation
                    $$a>b quad textimplies quad -b>-a$$
                    is much clearer, and invites the student to treat the inequality as a fixed equivalence in the same way they would treat an equality.



                    I feel it might be less confusing for students were this convention adopted, and the inequality was never reversed but for as a last resort. That would mean one less "rule" for students to "remember".






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.



















                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote









                      I can't help but feel this question highlights the self defeating nature of teaching maths via "cheat tricks". In my opinion it is probably best not to teach students ever to just "switch the sign" of the inequality in an arbitrary manner, which can be confusing.



                      As elegantly illustrated by @Benjamin_Dickman's proof, the alternative notation
                      $$a>b quad textimplies quad -b>-a$$
                      is much clearer, and invites the student to treat the inequality as a fixed equivalence in the same way they would treat an equality.



                      I feel it might be less confusing for students were this convention adopted, and the inequality was never reversed but for as a last resort. That would mean one less "rule" for students to "remember".






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      I can't help but feel this question highlights the self defeating nature of teaching maths via "cheat tricks". In my opinion it is probably best not to teach students ever to just "switch the sign" of the inequality in an arbitrary manner, which can be confusing.



                      As elegantly illustrated by @Benjamin_Dickman's proof, the alternative notation
                      $$a>b quad textimplies quad -b>-a$$
                      is much clearer, and invites the student to treat the inequality as a fixed equivalence in the same way they would treat an equality.



                      I feel it might be less confusing for students were this convention adopted, and the inequality was never reversed but for as a last resort. That would mean one less "rule" for students to "remember".







                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer






                      New contributor




                      Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      answered 19 hours ago









                      Aerinmund Fagelson

                      1111




                      1111




                      New contributor




                      Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      New contributor





                      Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      Aerinmund Fagelson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          I see it as a combination of the following, when we assume a field with a positive cone, and trichotomy. We want to show that if $a<b$ and $c<0$, then $cb<ac$.



                          • It is natural to expect the product of positive numbers to be positive.


                          • We denote the additive inverse of $a$ by $-a$.


                          • We note, from $a+(-a)=0$, that $-(-a)=a$.


                          • We note that $(-a)b=-(ab)$. Proof: $(-a)b+ab=(-a+a)b=0times b=0$ (one can earlier deduce that multiplication by $0$ is $0$ from distributivity).


                          • Now $(-a)(-b)=-(a(-b))=-((-b)a)=-(-ab)=ab$.


                          • From the above we conclude that the product of two negative numbers is positive, and that a positive number times a negative is negative.


                          • Now if $a<b$ and $c<0$, we have $b-a>0$ and $-c>0$, so $(-c)(b-a)>0$. That is, $-cb+ac>0$, or $cb<ac$.






                          share|improve this answer
























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote













                            I see it as a combination of the following, when we assume a field with a positive cone, and trichotomy. We want to show that if $a<b$ and $c<0$, then $cb<ac$.



                            • It is natural to expect the product of positive numbers to be positive.


                            • We denote the additive inverse of $a$ by $-a$.


                            • We note, from $a+(-a)=0$, that $-(-a)=a$.


                            • We note that $(-a)b=-(ab)$. Proof: $(-a)b+ab=(-a+a)b=0times b=0$ (one can earlier deduce that multiplication by $0$ is $0$ from distributivity).


                            • Now $(-a)(-b)=-(a(-b))=-((-b)a)=-(-ab)=ab$.


                            • From the above we conclude that the product of two negative numbers is positive, and that a positive number times a negative is negative.


                            • Now if $a<b$ and $c<0$, we have $b-a>0$ and $-c>0$, so $(-c)(b-a)>0$. That is, $-cb+ac>0$, or $cb<ac$.






                            share|improve this answer






















                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote









                              I see it as a combination of the following, when we assume a field with a positive cone, and trichotomy. We want to show that if $a<b$ and $c<0$, then $cb<ac$.



                              • It is natural to expect the product of positive numbers to be positive.


                              • We denote the additive inverse of $a$ by $-a$.


                              • We note, from $a+(-a)=0$, that $-(-a)=a$.


                              • We note that $(-a)b=-(ab)$. Proof: $(-a)b+ab=(-a+a)b=0times b=0$ (one can earlier deduce that multiplication by $0$ is $0$ from distributivity).


                              • Now $(-a)(-b)=-(a(-b))=-((-b)a)=-(-ab)=ab$.


                              • From the above we conclude that the product of two negative numbers is positive, and that a positive number times a negative is negative.


                              • Now if $a<b$ and $c<0$, we have $b-a>0$ and $-c>0$, so $(-c)(b-a)>0$. That is, $-cb+ac>0$, or $cb<ac$.






                              share|improve this answer












                              I see it as a combination of the following, when we assume a field with a positive cone, and trichotomy. We want to show that if $a<b$ and $c<0$, then $cb<ac$.



                              • It is natural to expect the product of positive numbers to be positive.


                              • We denote the additive inverse of $a$ by $-a$.


                              • We note, from $a+(-a)=0$, that $-(-a)=a$.


                              • We note that $(-a)b=-(ab)$. Proof: $(-a)b+ab=(-a+a)b=0times b=0$ (one can earlier deduce that multiplication by $0$ is $0$ from distributivity).


                              • Now $(-a)(-b)=-(a(-b))=-((-b)a)=-(-ab)=ab$.


                              • From the above we conclude that the product of two negative numbers is positive, and that a positive number times a negative is negative.


                              • Now if $a<b$ and $c<0$, we have $b-a>0$ and $-c>0$, so $(-c)(b-a)>0$. That is, $-cb+ac>0$, or $cb<ac$.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered yesterday









                              Martin Argerami

                              51728




                              51728




















                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  Other answers address multiplication by a negative number on both sides better than I can. For taking reciprocals of both sides, it may be helpful to examine why we know we can do that and maintain equality. This is one simple demonstration:



                                  Starting with the equation $fracab=fraccd$,



                                  we can multiply both sides by $fracdc$, giving $fracadbc=fraccddc$, which simplifies to $fracacbd=1$.



                                  We can then do the same with $fracba$, giving $fracbadabc=fracbacdot 1$, which simplifies to $fracdc=fracba$.



                                  This shows that if two numbers are equal, then their reciprocals are equal. However, notice that we didn't just turn each number into its reciprocal. We also flipped their positions: the $fracab$ on the left became $fracba$, but on the right. When we're talking about equality, this is inconsequential, since equality is symmetric. However, if you take the same example with $=$ replaced with $>$ or $<$, the fact that the values "switched places" does matter.



                                  This demonstration also shows why the sign only flips when both sides have the same sign. If they have different signs, then their reciprocals also have different signs, and exactly one of the multiplications by a reciprocal causes the inequality to flip. So you could argue that it does flip, but then it flips again, making it seem like it hasn't flipped. Similarly, if both sides are negative, it flips a total of three times, which has the same result as flipping once.






                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote













                                    Other answers address multiplication by a negative number on both sides better than I can. For taking reciprocals of both sides, it may be helpful to examine why we know we can do that and maintain equality. This is one simple demonstration:



                                    Starting with the equation $fracab=fraccd$,



                                    we can multiply both sides by $fracdc$, giving $fracadbc=fraccddc$, which simplifies to $fracacbd=1$.



                                    We can then do the same with $fracba$, giving $fracbadabc=fracbacdot 1$, which simplifies to $fracdc=fracba$.



                                    This shows that if two numbers are equal, then their reciprocals are equal. However, notice that we didn't just turn each number into its reciprocal. We also flipped their positions: the $fracab$ on the left became $fracba$, but on the right. When we're talking about equality, this is inconsequential, since equality is symmetric. However, if you take the same example with $=$ replaced with $>$ or $<$, the fact that the values "switched places" does matter.



                                    This demonstration also shows why the sign only flips when both sides have the same sign. If they have different signs, then their reciprocals also have different signs, and exactly one of the multiplications by a reciprocal causes the inequality to flip. So you could argue that it does flip, but then it flips again, making it seem like it hasn't flipped. Similarly, if both sides are negative, it flips a total of three times, which has the same result as flipping once.






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.



















                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote









                                      Other answers address multiplication by a negative number on both sides better than I can. For taking reciprocals of both sides, it may be helpful to examine why we know we can do that and maintain equality. This is one simple demonstration:



                                      Starting with the equation $fracab=fraccd$,



                                      we can multiply both sides by $fracdc$, giving $fracadbc=fraccddc$, which simplifies to $fracacbd=1$.



                                      We can then do the same with $fracba$, giving $fracbadabc=fracbacdot 1$, which simplifies to $fracdc=fracba$.



                                      This shows that if two numbers are equal, then their reciprocals are equal. However, notice that we didn't just turn each number into its reciprocal. We also flipped their positions: the $fracab$ on the left became $fracba$, but on the right. When we're talking about equality, this is inconsequential, since equality is symmetric. However, if you take the same example with $=$ replaced with $>$ or $<$, the fact that the values "switched places" does matter.



                                      This demonstration also shows why the sign only flips when both sides have the same sign. If they have different signs, then their reciprocals also have different signs, and exactly one of the multiplications by a reciprocal causes the inequality to flip. So you could argue that it does flip, but then it flips again, making it seem like it hasn't flipped. Similarly, if both sides are negative, it flips a total of three times, which has the same result as flipping once.






                                      share|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      Other answers address multiplication by a negative number on both sides better than I can. For taking reciprocals of both sides, it may be helpful to examine why we know we can do that and maintain equality. This is one simple demonstration:



                                      Starting with the equation $fracab=fraccd$,



                                      we can multiply both sides by $fracdc$, giving $fracadbc=fraccddc$, which simplifies to $fracacbd=1$.



                                      We can then do the same with $fracba$, giving $fracbadabc=fracbacdot 1$, which simplifies to $fracdc=fracba$.



                                      This shows that if two numbers are equal, then their reciprocals are equal. However, notice that we didn't just turn each number into its reciprocal. We also flipped their positions: the $fracab$ on the left became $fracba$, but on the right. When we're talking about equality, this is inconsequential, since equality is symmetric. However, if you take the same example with $=$ replaced with $>$ or $<$, the fact that the values "switched places" does matter.



                                      This demonstration also shows why the sign only flips when both sides have the same sign. If they have different signs, then their reciprocals also have different signs, and exactly one of the multiplications by a reciprocal causes the inequality to flip. So you could argue that it does flip, but then it flips again, making it seem like it hasn't flipped. Similarly, if both sides are negative, it flips a total of three times, which has the same result as flipping once.







                                      share|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer






                                      New contributor




                                      beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      answered 23 hours ago









                                      beiju

                                      1011




                                      1011




                                      New contributor




                                      beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                      New contributor





                                      beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                      beiju is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.













                                          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?