MedVision ad

Preliminary mathematics marathon (3 Viewers)

super.muppy

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
375
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Explain carefully why | x + a | + | x + b | (for some a =/= b) is always strictly positive.
assume | x + a | > 0 | x + b | > 0 for some a =/= b
a =/= b =/=0 , as well as all real values,
| a | =/= | b |
since | x + a | > 0 , | a | =/= 0
therefore | x + a | > 0 is true
similarly, | x + b | > 0 is true
therefore, | x + a | + | x + b | (for some a =/= b) is always strictly positive.
it is still valid if a or b = 0 therefore line 2 of your working out is incorrect
|x +b| or |x+a| can be = 0 therefore line 1 of your working out is incorrect
 
Last edited:

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,391
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Explain carefully why | x + a | + | x + b | (for some a =/= b) is always strictly positive.
assume | x + a | > 0 | x + b | > 0 for some a =/= b
a =/= b =/=0 , as well as all real positive values,
| a | =/= | b |
since | x + a | > 0 , | a | =/= 0
therefore | x + a | > 0 is true
similarly, | x + b | > 0 is true
therefore, | x + a | + | x + b | (for some a =/= b) is always strictly positive.
Um well first of all, you've made some assumption and then concluded with those assumptions leading to a circular argument. Also, the values of a and b can be anything whether it be zero, positive or negative numbers.

I'm very tempted to give a hint but that will give away the solution...will just see what others suggest
 

hscishard

Active Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
2,033
Location
study room...maybe
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
|x+a| >= 0
|x+b|>= 0
|x+a|+|x+b|>=0

But b =/=a
Therfore |x+a| =/= |x+b|
Then |x+a| + |x+b| =/= 0

Therefore from the 3rd line, |x+a|+|x+b|>0 i.e. is positive

Can that be right?
 

fullonoob

fail engrish? unpossible!
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
465
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
| x + a | + | x + b |
=sqrt (x+a)^2 + root (x+b)^2
= (x+a)^2 > 0 and (x+b)^2>0
x+a > 0 and x+b > 0
x> - a , x> -b
condition : a =/= b
since = (x+a)^2 > 0 and (x+b)^2>0
| x + a | + | x + b | > 0
if wrong clue me
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,391
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
|x+a| >= 0
|x+b|>= 0
|x+a|+|x+b|>=0

But b =/=a
Therfore |x+a| =/= |x+b|
Then |x+a| + |x+b| =/= 0

Therefore from the 3rd line, |x+a|+|x+b|>0 i.e. is positive

Can that be right?
Very close! Can you provide a rigorous mathematical justification for that conclusion (based on the previous line) you made in bold? In other words explain carefully why | x + a | =/= | x + b | implies | x + a | + | x + b | =/= 0.

However, I can tell you now that it is possible to prove | x + a | + | x + b | =/= 0 easily without even needing to state | x + a | =/= | x + b |. It involves using a certain method of proof ;)

Just another hint: it does involve an assumption but not the assumption that | x + a | and | x + b | are both positive...(and no it does not involve induction lol)
 
Last edited:

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,391
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
| x + a | + | x + b |
=sqrt (x+a)^2 + root (x+b)^2
= (x+a)^2 > 0 and (x+b)^2>0
x+a > 0 and x+b > 0
x> - a , x> -b
condition : a =/= b
since = (x+a)^2 > 0 and (x+b)^2>0
| x + a | + | x + b | > 0
if wrong clue me
(x - a)² for example isn't necessarily always positive, it is non-negative. Also, when you solve inequalities with quadratics there are always two cases to consider (note that x + a < 0 for example is perfectly valid).

The first part of hscishard's proof is the starting point. So it goes:
| x + a | ≥ 0 and | x + b | ≥ 0
=> | x + a | + | x + b | ≥ 0

This means we have to prove that the equality cannot hold (i.e. strict inequality must hold) for a =/= b.
 
Last edited:

hscishard

Active Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
2,033
Location
study room...maybe
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Very close! Can you provide a rigorous mathematical justification for that conclusion (based on the previous line) you made in bold? In other words explain carefully why | x + a | =/= | x + b | implies | x + a | + | x + b | =/= 0.

However, I can tell you now that it is possible to prove | x + a | + | x + b | =/= 0 easily without even needing to state | x + a | =/= | x + b |. It involves using a certain method of proof ;)
Let b=a+c

|x+a| + |x+(a+c)|>=0
If x+a =0, which will be|0|+|c|, which is greater than 0
If x+a+c=0, x+a=-c which will be |-c| + |0| which is positive
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,391
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Let b=a+c

|x+a| + |x+(a+c)|>=0
If x+a =0, which will be|0|+|c|, which is greater than 0
If x+a+c=0, x+a=-c which will be |-c| + |0| which is positive
Interesting approach, which is perfectly fine though it wasn't what I had in mind which was:

Suppose | x + a | + | x + b | = 0
=> | x + a | = - | x + b |
Since | x + a | ≥ 0 then - | x + b | ≥ 0 which is true only when x = - b which implies
| - b + a | = 0
=> a = b
But a =/= b so there is a contradiction, hence | x + a | + | x + b | =/= 0

Therefore | x + a | + | x + b | > 0

Anyway, I'll stop pretending to be a strict pure mathematician and give an applied mathematics question! :)

Suppose that there are two products A and B. A typical consumer that purchases these two products gains utility (which is a measure of "happiness") from them such that U = x1x2 where x1 is the total quantity of product A purchased and x2 is the total quantity of product B purchased. Suppose the price of product A is $1 and the price of product B is $2.

Suppose Michael is one of these typical consumers with such a utility function. Unfortunately, Michael only has $20 to purchase the two products which means he can only purchase a limited quantity of each product. Assume that he uses the entire $20 in his purchase.

(i) Write an expression in terms of x1 and x2 that represents the limited amount of each product he can purchase since he has only $20

(ii) Hence, find the quantities x1 and x2 such that his utility is maximised (i.e. find the most "happiness" Michael can attain with his limited $20 amount to spend)
 
Last edited:

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,391
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
It is right, but it's not quite complete. You also need to show if the expressions x + a and x + a + c are non-zero then equality to zero cannot hold. Proof by contradiction is probably more efficient.
 

jeshxcore

Premium Member :)
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
295
Location
Upper North Shore
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
Interesting approach, which is perfectly fine though it wasn't what I had in mind which was:

Suppose | x + a | + | x + b | = 0
=> | x + a | = - | x + b |
Since | x + a | ≥ 0 then - | x + b | ≥ 0 which is true only when x = - b which implies
| - b + a | = 0
=> a = b
But a =/= b so there is a contradiction, hence | x + a | + | x + b | =/= 0

Therefore | x + a | + | x + b | > 0

Anyway, I'll stop pretending to be a strict pure mathematician and give an applied mathematics question! :)

Suppose that there are two products A and B. A typical consumer that purchases these two products gains utility (which is a measure of "happiness") from them such that U = x1x2 where x1 is the total quantity of product A purchased and x2 is the total quantity of product B purchased. Suppose the price of product A is $1 and the price of product B is $2.

Suppose Michael is one of these typical consumers with such a utility function. Unfortunately, Michael only has $20 to purchase the two products which means he can only purchase a limited quantity of each product. Assume that he uses the entire $20 in his purchase.

(i) Write an expression in terms of x1 and x2 that represents the limited amount of each product he can purchase since he has only $20

(ii) Hence, find the quantities x1 and x2 such that his utility is maximised (i.e. find the most "happiness" Michael can attain with his limited $20 amount to spend)
Let the number of units of x1 purchased = z
Thus the number of x2 units purchased = (20 - z)/2

Therefore utility = z(x1) * ((20-z)/2)(x2)
du/dz = x1((20-z)/2)(x2) + z(x1) * (-1/2)(x2)
= (20.x1.x2)/2 - (z.x1.x2)/2 - (z.x1.x2)/2
= (20.x1.x2)/2 - z.x1.x2
= 0 at stationary points
therefore: 0 = (20.x1.x2)/2 - z.x1.x2
z.x1.x2 = (20.x1.x2)/2
2z.x1.x2 = 20.x1.x2
2z = 20
z = 10

SECOND DERIVATIVE:
du2/dz2 = -x1.x2 < 0 for all values of z
THEREFORE z = 10 is a MAXIMUM

therefore the amount of x1 bought = 10 units
the amount of x2 bought = 5 units


i hope that shit is right lol
 

jeshxcore

Premium Member :)
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
295
Location
Upper North Shore
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
Let the number of units of x1 purchased = z
Thus the number of x2 units purchased = (20 - z)/2

Therefore utility = z(x1) * ((20-z)/2)(x2)
du/dz = x1((20-z)/2)(x2) + z(x1) * (-1/2)(x2)
= (20.x1.x2)/2 - (z.x1.x2)/2 - (z.x1.x2)/2
= (20.x1.x2)/2 - z.x1.x2
= 0 at stationary points
therefore: 0 = (20.x1.x2)/2 - z.x1.x2
z.x1.x2 = (20.x1.x2)/2
2z.x1.x2 = 20.x1.x2
2z = 20
z = 10


SECOND DERIVATIVE:
du2/dz2 = -x1.x2 < 0 for all values of z
THEREFORE z = 10 is a MAXIMUM

therefore the amount of x1 bought = 10 units
the amount of x2 bought = 5 units


i hope that shit is right lol
actually perhaps cos it's a parabola, cut that shit out

the parabola is negative, and hence has a maximum

the maximum occurrs half way between the 2 "z" intercepts


z(x1) * ((20-z)/2)(x2) = 0
z = 0, 20
therefore: z that maximises U = (20 - 0)/2
= 10
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
4,741
Location
sarajevo
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
Uni Grad
2017
(i) Write an expression in terms of x1 and x2 that represents the limited amount of each product he can purchase since he has only $20
amount of A + amount of B = $20

amount of $1 + amount of $2 = $20

x1*$1 + x2*$2 = $20

x1 + 2x2 = 20 ---- (1)

(ii) Hence, find the quantities x1 and x2 such that his utility is maximised (i.e. find the most "happiness" Michael can attain with his limited $20 amount to spend)
let x2 = x

U = x1x ---- (2)

from (1): x1 = 20 - 2x ---- (1a)

subs. (1a) into (2):

U = x(20 - 2x)

U = -2x2+20x ---- (2a)

sad face parabola, maximum at dU/dx = -4x + 20 = 0

maximum at x = 5 ---- (3)

subs. (3) into (1a)

x1 = 10

.: x1 = 10, x2 = 5
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
4,741
Location
sarajevo
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
Uni Grad
2017
Re: another question

AP || BQ (co-interior angles are supplementary)

Construct BC ⊥ AP

BC = 15 cm (Pythagorean theorem)

.: PQ = 15 cm (opposite sides of a rectangle are equal)

fixed retardedness
 
Last edited:

edmundsung

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
31
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Re: another question

AP || BQ (co-interior angles are supplementary)

Construct BC ⊥ AP

BC = √777 cm (Pythagorean theorem)

.: PQ = √777 cm (opposite sides of a rectangle are equal)
just wondering how u got BC=√777 cm by pyth. theorem.
BC=√777 =27.87(cor. to 2 dp)
which is larger than AB (17cm) lol considering AB is the hypotenuse @@
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
4,741
Location
sarajevo
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
Uni Grad
2017
Re: another question

just wondering how u got BC=√777 cm by pyth. theorem.
BC=√777 =27.87(cor. to 2 dp)
which is larger than AB (17cm) lol considering AB is the hypotenuse @@
lol I read "distance between the centres" as "distance between the circles", haha, I thought AB was 17+10+2=29. lol.

So yeah, PQ is 15 cm.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top