If x 3 </msup> &#x2212;<!-- − --> x &gt; 0 , so x &gt; &#x2

Gauge Terrell

Gauge Terrell

Answered question

2022-07-12

If x 3 x > 0, so x > 1. How do I prove that by contrapositive?
My attempt:
Q P, by contrapositive we have: ¬ Q ¬ P, so, if x < 1, x 3 x < 0.

Answer & Explanation

Charlee Gentry

Charlee Gentry

Beginner2022-07-13Added 19 answers

Step 1
Take the simpler route:
Suppose that, x 3 x > 0, but x 1. Then we have:
- If x = 1, then x 3 x = 0.
A contradiction.
Step 2
If x < 1, then x < 0 and x 2 > 1. This implies, x 2 1 > 0. This means, x ( x 2 1 ) = x 3 x < 0.
Again a contradiction.
Therefore, if x 3 x > 0, then x > 1.
kreamykraka80

kreamykraka80

Beginner2022-07-14Added 1 answers

Step 1
First, if not a > b, then a b. There are three ordering states: less than, equal, and greater than. If we assert that one is not the case, then the other two remain. So, from x 3 x > 0 x > 1 the contrapositive is (notice the exchange of the two clauses as we negate them)
¬ ( x > 1 ) ¬ ( x 3 x > 0 )
Factoring, we obtain x 1 x ( x 2 1 ) 0 ..
Notice that our assumption forces x to be negative. This means the first factor, x, is negative. For the second factor,
- if x 2 > 1, the second factor is positive,
- if x 2 = 1, the second factor is zero, and
- if x 2 < 1, the second factor is negative.
Step 2
The assumed inequality, x 1 gives us two cases: x < 1 or x = 1.
- x = 1 case). If x = 1, then x 2 = 1 and the second factor is 0, so x ( x 2 1 ) = ( 1 ) ( 0 ) = 0, which is compatible with x ( x 2 1 ) 0.
- ( x < 1 case). If x < 1, then | x | > 1, so x 2 > 1, so x ( x 2 1 ) is the product of a negative and a positive number, so is negative, which is compatible with x ( x 2 1 ) 0.
Combining the two cases, we have shown the validity of x 1 x 3 x 0.

Do you have a similar question?

Recalculate according to your conditions!

New Questions in Discrete math

Ask your question.
Get an expert answer.

Let our experts help you. Answer in as fast as 15 minutes.

Didn't find what you were looking for?