BigBeachBanana
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2021
- Messages
- 2,277
Forx>0⇒3(x3−1)2>0>−4x5⇒3(x3−1)2>−4x5⇒3(x3−1)2+4x5>0what about x>0 then?
Forx>0⇒3(x3−1)2>0>−4x5⇒3(x3−1)2>−4x5⇒3(x3−1)2+4x5>0what about x>0 then?
Nvm, my logic doesn't work for x<0I haven't had time to read JeffM's post, but I'll share this thought in case it helps. If you rewrite the inequality as follows then you should be able to prove it for the cases x=0 and x>0 but I can't see an easy way for x<0.
3(x3−1)2>−4x5
It's also not true, just put x=1Forx>0⇒3(x3−1)2>0>−4x5⇒3(x3−1)2>−4x5⇒3(x3−1)2+4x5>0
Ohh sorry, it is... My mistake it's too late, 3 a.m. my time, let's go back to this problem tomorrow...It's also not true, just put x=1![]()
but it should be:Forx>0⇒3(x3−1)2>0>−4x5⇒3(x3−1)2>−4x5⇒3(x3−1)2+4x5>0
. For x>0 : f(x)=x6+4x5−6x3+3=3(x3−1)2+4x5>0,
I sure did -- thank you for catching the typo.You meant that f(x) = 3x6+ ...
I start by repeating what I wrote in post # 12That's good reasoning, what about x>0 then? In case of x=0 is obvious
Perfect!After some hard work guys I found the best solution for that, just look:
3x6+4x5−6x3+3=2x2(x2+x−1)2+(x3−1)2+(x2−1)2+x4+1≥1>0Q.E.D.
Thank you!Perfect!
That is called perseverance...You can obtain a tighter bound using this, rather obvious, equivalent...
3x6+4x5−6x3+3
=((4x3+5x2−6x)2+(6x3+4x2−5)2+(2x3−2x2)2+4x6+3x4+4x2)/20+47
≥143>0
( It probably would have been quicker if I'd reinvented calculus from scratch rather than finding the above expression ? )