Hi /sci/
could you help me out on this one please:
is it possible that
(1) a-b < c-d
and at the same time
(2) a/b > c/d
where a, b, c and d are from the one-dimensional Euclidean space of real numbers strictly greater than 1.
If this is possible, could you show me a proof or a link to a proof?
Best, /sci/addict
>>8158055
no
a=2
b=3
c=8
d=6
a-b=-1 < c-d=2
a/b=2/3
c/d = 4/3
in fact this counterexample works for any a<b<d<c since a-b<0, c-d>0, a/b<1 and c/d>1.
So no your equation is not true
Yes:
3-2 < 99 - 97
3/2 > 99/97
Great! Thanks so far! I get the counter example and the generalizaton of the counter example. Still, is there another "general" proof that would kind of rewrite equation (1) and show that if (2) was correct too, a weird contradiction would result?
>>8158055
OP is fucking retarded
>>8158083
>>8158064
>in fact this counterexample works for any a<b<d<c since a-b<0, c-d>0, a/b<1 and c/d>1.
So no your equation is not true
The question asks if there exists values for (a,b,c,d) such that the relations are satisfied. It does not ask if the relations are true in all cases.
Your counter example is for a different type of problem. Please learn to read before you confuse people even more with wrong information.
I was sure it can't be possible
>>8158246
the question as I understand it is "does the first line imply the second line, if so can you prove it".
Now I see that it can be understood as "is there an example of this situation", but it's not obvious which one OP was asking for.
So instead of being a dipshit, contribute or stfu.
>>8158264
It is pretty clear what OP says, we are contributing by calling on your crazy bullshit.
>>8158266
if you actually read the thread, you would see that I actually answered OP's question and that you're the one who didn't understand.
now go fuck yourself with a cactus, and get some lasik.
>>8158274
No, I am 8158073, you are the one who made a huge mistake and is now playing the game of who answers last because you are mentally ill. Most people will read the thread and realize that you are a retarded teenager lying to yourself on the internet.
>>8158281
you're right
>>8158264
No, the question is obviously asking for four numbers that satisfy both inequalities. Your reading comprehension is horrid.
"and at the same time" does not mean the same thing as "implies", I can't imagine in what world they are even close.
Hi all,
I am the OP. Thanks for the contributions :) Indeed, I was not completely clear in the original question. I meant to ask whether (1) and (2) are ALWAYS simultaneously true or not. So setting a<b<d<c shows this is not always the case.
I see the contradiction but what I am actually even more interested is how you got to the result that if a<b<d<c then (1) and (2) do not simultaneously hold.
Could you share your approach to getting this result or was this "just" intuition?
>>8158369
ah sure
well from 1<a<b<d<c, you get a-b is a negative number, and d-c is a positive number.
So (1) is always verified in that case.
however you also get a/b<1 and c/d>1, so (2) never holds under these constraints.
my intuition was: "make the gap between a and b as small as possible" to reduce the constraints on c and d.
then I wanted a/b>c/d, which was hard if I had a<b<c<d, so I just flipped c and d to make it work :)
great - thanks! :)
>>8158482
No problem new friend :^)
>>8158801
>Impersonating someone else 4 hours later
>>8159771
how the fuck do you figure? do you even know what that word means?
>>8159841
off you go
your mommy needs you upstairs.
>>8159845
I'll give your Photoshop technique a 5/7
>>8159855
sure. How does it feel to be so useless you can't even spot a samefag? I mean you should just kill yourself right now and save your family the trouble of seeing you decay like the piece of trash you are.
>>8159857
Don't be so edgy, samefag.
>>8159864
kys
don't forget to stream it, I'd love to watch.
>>8159873
Wew lad
>>8159892
kys
