You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points
*

So you need to proof x•c < x for 0<=c<1?

Isn’t that just:

xc < x | ÷x

c < x/x (for x=/=0)

c < 1 q.e.d.

What am I missing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

My math teacher would be angry because you started from the conclusion and derived the premise, rather than the other way around. Note also that you assumed that division is defined. That may not have been the case in the original problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

isnt that how methods like proof by contrapositive work ??

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Proof by contrapositive would be c<0 ∨ c≥1 ⇒ … ⇒ xc≥x. That is not just starting from the conclusion and deriving the premise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Your math teacher is weird. But you can just turn it around:

c < 1

c < x/x | •x

xc < x q.e.d.

This also shows, that c≥0 is not actually a requirement, but x>0 is

I guess if your math teacher is completely insufferable, you need to add the definitions of the arithmetic operations but at that point you should also need to introduce Latin letters and Arabic numerals.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Math Memes

!mathmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Create post

Memes related to mathematics.

Rules:
1: Memes must be related to mathematics in some way.
2: No bigotry of any kind.

Community stats

  • 1K

    Monthly active users

  • 72

    Posts

  • 599

    Comments

Community moderators