Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have trouble understanding something in a book I am reading.
It says for the following:

$$c_1\leq \frac{1}{2} - \frac{3}{n}\leq c_2$$ where $c_1,c_2$ are positive constants, $n$ is a positive variable.

It says that

We can make the right-hand inequality hold for any value of $n \geq 1$ by choosing any constant $c_2 \geq \frac{1}{2}$.

But if I start to work with the right hand side, I end up with $c_2\lt\frac{1}{2}$.

Does the book have a typo or am I wrong?
I also have different result for the left-hand side inequality but I leave it out.


UPDATE (after comments):

$$\begin{align*} \frac{1}{2}-\frac{3}{n}\leq c_2 &\Longleftrightarrow \frac{n}{2}-3 \leq nc_2\\ &\Longleftrightarrow \frac{n}{2}-nc_2 \leq 3\\ &\Longleftrightarrow n\left(\frac{1}{2}-c_2\right)\leq 3\\ &\Longleftrightarrow n\leq \frac{3}{\frac{1}{2}-c_2}\\ \end{align*}$$ So it must be $\frac{1}{2}-c_2 \gt 0$, so $c_2 \lt \frac{1}{2}$ (I think)

share|improve this question
    
How do you end up with $c_2\lt\frac{1}{2}$? –  Arturo Magidin Oct 3 '11 at 19:32
    
I have updated post –  user384706 Oct 3 '11 at 19:42
6  
When you divided through by $\frac{1}{2}-c_2$, you implicitly assumed that it was positive. You discounted the possibility that it is equal to $0$ (which is certainly possible, and makes the inequality $n\left(\frac{1}{2}-c_2\right)\leq 3$ true); or that is negative (which also makes the inequality true). If it were negative, when you divided by it you would have had to reverse the inequality sign to get $n\geq \frac{3}{\frac{1}{2}-c_2}$, which would hold for all $n$. In fact, what you are showing is that if $c\lt \frac{1}{2}$, then the inequality does not hold for all $n$. –  Arturo Magidin Oct 3 '11 at 19:49
1  
Yes, as Arturo points out, just because $xy<z$, you can't conclude that $x<z/y$, unless you assume that $y>0$. So you've proven that, if $c_2\lt \frac{1}{2}$, then $c_2\lt \frac{1}{2}$, which is silly. –  Thomas Andrews Oct 3 '11 at 19:57
    
How am I showing that if c<(1/2) the inequality does not hold for all n?I don't get this comment (or that I proven that if c2<1/2 then c2<1/2). –  user384706 Oct 3 '11 at 20:03

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

You aren't trying to "solve for $c_2$"; there are many values of $c_2$ that will satisfy the inequality for specific values of $n$. However, only values with $c_2\geq \frac{1}{2}$ will satisfy the inequality for all positive values of $n$.

If $n\geq 1$, then $0\lt \frac{3}{n}$; so $\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3}{n}\lt \frac{1}{2}$, no matter what $n$ is. Thus, if $c_2\geq \frac{1}{2}$, then certainly $\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3}{n}\lt \frac{1}{2}\leq c_2$, so the inequality holds.

That's the assertion being made: that if $c_2\geq \frac{1}{2}$, then the inequality will hold for any $n\geq 1$.

share|improve this answer

The book is correct. Since $n$ is positive, $\frac12-\frac3n$ will always be less than $\frac12$. Thus the inequality will hold as long as $c_2\ge\frac12$. If this isn't clear, please write out how you ended up with $c_2\lt\frac12$.

share|improve this answer
    
I have update post –  user384706 Oct 3 '11 at 19:42

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.