How do we prove that $(x-1)!leq{(frac{x}{2})^{x-1}}$?












0












$begingroup$


I plotted the graph of $y=(x-1)!$ and $y=(frac{x}{2})^{x-1}$ and found that the latter is always greater than the former for $x>2$. Also, equality holds at $x=2$. Would someone please help me to prove it mathematically?






inequality







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    That's wrong. For $x=6$ you have $5!=120<46,656=3^6$
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    Jan 5 at 18:29






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is not true since $n! sim sqrt{2pi n}(n/e)^n$ by Stirling's formula.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Jan 5 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Actually, I think your inequality should be reversed because of Stirling's approximation formula.
    $endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Jan 5 at 18:32










  • $begingroup$
    Yes sorry the reversed inequality holds. Also it is $(x/2)^{x-1}$ instead of $(x/2)^x$.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For every positive integer $n$, the arithmetic mean of $1, 2, ldots, n$ is $frac{n+1}{2}$, and the geometric mean of the same numbers is $sqrt[n]{n!}$, so $left(frac{n+1}{2}right)^n geqslant n!$
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    Jan 5 at 18:39
















0












$begingroup$


I plotted the graph of $y=(x-1)!$ and $y=(frac{x}{2})^{x-1}$ and found that the latter is always greater than the former for $x>2$. Also, equality holds at $x=2$. Would someone please help me to prove it mathematically?






inequality







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    That's wrong. For $x=6$ you have $5!=120<46,656=3^6$
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    Jan 5 at 18:29






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is not true since $n! sim sqrt{2pi n}(n/e)^n$ by Stirling's formula.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Jan 5 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Actually, I think your inequality should be reversed because of Stirling's approximation formula.
    $endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Jan 5 at 18:32










  • $begingroup$
    Yes sorry the reversed inequality holds. Also it is $(x/2)^{x-1}$ instead of $(x/2)^x$.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For every positive integer $n$, the arithmetic mean of $1, 2, ldots, n$ is $frac{n+1}{2}$, and the geometric mean of the same numbers is $sqrt[n]{n!}$, so $left(frac{n+1}{2}right)^n geqslant n!$
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    Jan 5 at 18:39














0












0








0





$begingroup$


I plotted the graph of $y=(x-1)!$ and $y=(frac{x}{2})^{x-1}$ and found that the latter is always greater than the former for $x>2$. Also, equality holds at $x=2$. Would someone please help me to prove it mathematically?






inequality







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I plotted the graph of $y=(x-1)!$ and $y=(frac{x}{2})^{x-1}$ and found that the latter is always greater than the former for $x>2$. Also, equality holds at $x=2$. Would someone please help me to prove it mathematically?






inequality




inequality






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 6 at 9:37







Shashwat1337

















asked Jan 5 at 18:26









Shashwat1337Shashwat1337

497




497








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    That's wrong. For $x=6$ you have $5!=120<46,656=3^6$
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    Jan 5 at 18:29






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is not true since $n! sim sqrt{2pi n}(n/e)^n$ by Stirling's formula.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Jan 5 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Actually, I think your inequality should be reversed because of Stirling's approximation formula.
    $endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Jan 5 at 18:32










  • $begingroup$
    Yes sorry the reversed inequality holds. Also it is $(x/2)^{x-1}$ instead of $(x/2)^x$.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For every positive integer $n$, the arithmetic mean of $1, 2, ldots, n$ is $frac{n+1}{2}$, and the geometric mean of the same numbers is $sqrt[n]{n!}$, so $left(frac{n+1}{2}right)^n geqslant n!$
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    Jan 5 at 18:39














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    That's wrong. For $x=6$ you have $5!=120<46,656=3^6$
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    Jan 5 at 18:29






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is not true since $n! sim sqrt{2pi n}(n/e)^n$ by Stirling's formula.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Jan 5 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Actually, I think your inequality should be reversed because of Stirling's approximation formula.
    $endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Jan 5 at 18:32










  • $begingroup$
    Yes sorry the reversed inequality holds. Also it is $(x/2)^{x-1}$ instead of $(x/2)^x$.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:34








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For every positive integer $n$, the arithmetic mean of $1, 2, ldots, n$ is $frac{n+1}{2}$, and the geometric mean of the same numbers is $sqrt[n]{n!}$, so $left(frac{n+1}{2}right)^n geqslant n!$
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    Jan 5 at 18:39








3




3




$begingroup$
That's wrong. For $x=6$ you have $5!=120<46,656=3^6$
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 5 at 18:29




$begingroup$
That's wrong. For $x=6$ you have $5!=120<46,656=3^6$
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 5 at 18:29




1




1




$begingroup$
It is not true since $n! sim sqrt{2pi n}(n/e)^n$ by Stirling's formula.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 5 at 18:31




$begingroup$
It is not true since $n! sim sqrt{2pi n}(n/e)^n$ by Stirling's formula.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 5 at 18:31




1




1




$begingroup$
Actually, I think your inequality should be reversed because of Stirling's approximation formula.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 5 at 18:32




$begingroup$
Actually, I think your inequality should be reversed because of Stirling's approximation formula.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 5 at 18:32












$begingroup$
Yes sorry the reversed inequality holds. Also it is $(x/2)^{x-1}$ instead of $(x/2)^x$.
$endgroup$
– Shashwat1337
Jan 5 at 18:34






$begingroup$
Yes sorry the reversed inequality holds. Also it is $(x/2)^{x-1}$ instead of $(x/2)^x$.
$endgroup$
– Shashwat1337
Jan 5 at 18:34






2




2




$begingroup$
For every positive integer $n$, the arithmetic mean of $1, 2, ldots, n$ is $frac{n+1}{2}$, and the geometric mean of the same numbers is $sqrt[n]{n!}$, so $left(frac{n+1}{2}right)^n geqslant n!$
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
Jan 5 at 18:39




$begingroup$
For every positive integer $n$, the arithmetic mean of $1, 2, ldots, n$ is $frac{n+1}{2}$, and the geometric mean of the same numbers is $sqrt[n]{n!}$, so $left(frac{n+1}{2}right)^n geqslant n!$
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
Jan 5 at 18:39










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Your conclusion is wrong. For $x=4$ we have $$(x-1)!=6\({xover 2})^x=16$$and $$(x-1)!notge ({xover 2})^x$$



Comment



The inequality is true in reverse side for large enough $n$ using Stirling's Approximation for factorial as follows $$(x-1)!<x!approx sqrt {2pi x}({xover e})^x<({xover 2})^x$$since $$sqrt{2pi x}<({eover 2})^x$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I made a mistake. The reversed inequality holds. Thank you very much.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're welcome. Wish you luck!
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Jan 5 at 18:43



















1












$begingroup$

As already noted in a comment, if $x$ is intended only to have integral values $geqslant 2$, then the inequality (corrected now, so that the inequality sign points in the right direction) follows from the AM-GM inequality, applied to the $x - 1$ numbers $1, 2, ldots, x - 1$.



But the question is naturally read as applying to all real values of $x geqslant 2$, so for the sake of other readers it is also worth proving the inequality in the more general case, with $(x - 1)!$ understood to mean $Gamma(x)$.



To prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:1}tag{1}
logGamma(x) leqslant (x - 1)logleft(frac{x}{2}right) quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
because this holds for $x = 2$, it is enough to prove the inequality obtained by differentiating both sides:
begin{equation}
label{ineq:2}tag{2}
psi(x) leqslant logleft(frac{x}{2}right) + 1 - frac{1}{x} quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
where $psi$ is the Digamma function.



As a special case of the formula
$$
psi(n) = H_{n-1} - gamma,
$$
we have
$$
psi(2) = 1 - gamma < frac{1}{2},
$$
so eqref{ineq:2} holds for $x = 2$.



Differentiating again, we find that it is enough to prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:3}tag{3}
sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} leqslant frac{1}{x} + frac{1}{x^2} quad (x geqslant 2).
end{equation}
Indeed,
$$
sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} < sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n - 1)(x + n)} = sum_{n=1}^inftyleft(frac{1}{x + n - 1} - frac{1}{x + n}right) = frac{1}{x}.
$$
This proves eqref{ineq:3}, therefore eqref{ineq:2}, and therefore eqref{ineq:1}, with strict inequality for $x > 2$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much. The proof was great!
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 6 at 9:41











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063036%2fhow-do-we-prove-that-x-1-leq-fracx2x-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

Your conclusion is wrong. For $x=4$ we have $$(x-1)!=6\({xover 2})^x=16$$and $$(x-1)!notge ({xover 2})^x$$



Comment



The inequality is true in reverse side for large enough $n$ using Stirling's Approximation for factorial as follows $$(x-1)!<x!approx sqrt {2pi x}({xover e})^x<({xover 2})^x$$since $$sqrt{2pi x}<({eover 2})^x$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I made a mistake. The reversed inequality holds. Thank you very much.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're welcome. Wish you luck!
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Jan 5 at 18:43
















1












$begingroup$

Your conclusion is wrong. For $x=4$ we have $$(x-1)!=6\({xover 2})^x=16$$and $$(x-1)!notge ({xover 2})^x$$



Comment



The inequality is true in reverse side for large enough $n$ using Stirling's Approximation for factorial as follows $$(x-1)!<x!approx sqrt {2pi x}({xover e})^x<({xover 2})^x$$since $$sqrt{2pi x}<({eover 2})^x$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I made a mistake. The reversed inequality holds. Thank you very much.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're welcome. Wish you luck!
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Jan 5 at 18:43














1












1








1





$begingroup$

Your conclusion is wrong. For $x=4$ we have $$(x-1)!=6\({xover 2})^x=16$$and $$(x-1)!notge ({xover 2})^x$$



Comment



The inequality is true in reverse side for large enough $n$ using Stirling's Approximation for factorial as follows $$(x-1)!<x!approx sqrt {2pi x}({xover e})^x<({xover 2})^x$$since $$sqrt{2pi x}<({eover 2})^x$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Your conclusion is wrong. For $x=4$ we have $$(x-1)!=6\({xover 2})^x=16$$and $$(x-1)!notge ({xover 2})^x$$



Comment



The inequality is true in reverse side for large enough $n$ using Stirling's Approximation for factorial as follows $$(x-1)!<x!approx sqrt {2pi x}({xover e})^x<({xover 2})^x$$since $$sqrt{2pi x}<({eover 2})^x$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 5 at 18:44

























answered Jan 5 at 18:33









Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz

15.5k3939




15.5k3939












  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I made a mistake. The reversed inequality holds. Thank you very much.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're welcome. Wish you luck!
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Jan 5 at 18:43


















  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I made a mistake. The reversed inequality holds. Thank you very much.
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 5 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're welcome. Wish you luck!
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Jan 5 at 18:43
















$begingroup$
Yes, I made a mistake. The reversed inequality holds. Thank you very much.
$endgroup$
– Shashwat1337
Jan 5 at 18:42




$begingroup$
Yes, I made a mistake. The reversed inequality holds. Thank you very much.
$endgroup$
– Shashwat1337
Jan 5 at 18:42












$begingroup$
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 5 at 18:43




$begingroup$
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 5 at 18:43











1












$begingroup$

As already noted in a comment, if $x$ is intended only to have integral values $geqslant 2$, then the inequality (corrected now, so that the inequality sign points in the right direction) follows from the AM-GM inequality, applied to the $x - 1$ numbers $1, 2, ldots, x - 1$.



But the question is naturally read as applying to all real values of $x geqslant 2$, so for the sake of other readers it is also worth proving the inequality in the more general case, with $(x - 1)!$ understood to mean $Gamma(x)$.



To prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:1}tag{1}
logGamma(x) leqslant (x - 1)logleft(frac{x}{2}right) quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
because this holds for $x = 2$, it is enough to prove the inequality obtained by differentiating both sides:
begin{equation}
label{ineq:2}tag{2}
psi(x) leqslant logleft(frac{x}{2}right) + 1 - frac{1}{x} quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
where $psi$ is the Digamma function.



As a special case of the formula
$$
psi(n) = H_{n-1} - gamma,
$$
we have
$$
psi(2) = 1 - gamma < frac{1}{2},
$$
so eqref{ineq:2} holds for $x = 2$.



Differentiating again, we find that it is enough to prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:3}tag{3}
sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} leqslant frac{1}{x} + frac{1}{x^2} quad (x geqslant 2).
end{equation}
Indeed,
$$
sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} < sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n - 1)(x + n)} = sum_{n=1}^inftyleft(frac{1}{x + n - 1} - frac{1}{x + n}right) = frac{1}{x}.
$$
This proves eqref{ineq:3}, therefore eqref{ineq:2}, and therefore eqref{ineq:1}, with strict inequality for $x > 2$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much. The proof was great!
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 6 at 9:41
















1












$begingroup$

As already noted in a comment, if $x$ is intended only to have integral values $geqslant 2$, then the inequality (corrected now, so that the inequality sign points in the right direction) follows from the AM-GM inequality, applied to the $x - 1$ numbers $1, 2, ldots, x - 1$.



But the question is naturally read as applying to all real values of $x geqslant 2$, so for the sake of other readers it is also worth proving the inequality in the more general case, with $(x - 1)!$ understood to mean $Gamma(x)$.



To prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:1}tag{1}
logGamma(x) leqslant (x - 1)logleft(frac{x}{2}right) quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
because this holds for $x = 2$, it is enough to prove the inequality obtained by differentiating both sides:
begin{equation}
label{ineq:2}tag{2}
psi(x) leqslant logleft(frac{x}{2}right) + 1 - frac{1}{x} quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
where $psi$ is the Digamma function.



As a special case of the formula
$$
psi(n) = H_{n-1} - gamma,
$$
we have
$$
psi(2) = 1 - gamma < frac{1}{2},
$$
so eqref{ineq:2} holds for $x = 2$.



Differentiating again, we find that it is enough to prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:3}tag{3}
sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} leqslant frac{1}{x} + frac{1}{x^2} quad (x geqslant 2).
end{equation}
Indeed,
$$
sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} < sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n - 1)(x + n)} = sum_{n=1}^inftyleft(frac{1}{x + n - 1} - frac{1}{x + n}right) = frac{1}{x}.
$$
This proves eqref{ineq:3}, therefore eqref{ineq:2}, and therefore eqref{ineq:1}, with strict inequality for $x > 2$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much. The proof was great!
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 6 at 9:41














1












1








1





$begingroup$

As already noted in a comment, if $x$ is intended only to have integral values $geqslant 2$, then the inequality (corrected now, so that the inequality sign points in the right direction) follows from the AM-GM inequality, applied to the $x - 1$ numbers $1, 2, ldots, x - 1$.



But the question is naturally read as applying to all real values of $x geqslant 2$, so for the sake of other readers it is also worth proving the inequality in the more general case, with $(x - 1)!$ understood to mean $Gamma(x)$.



To prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:1}tag{1}
logGamma(x) leqslant (x - 1)logleft(frac{x}{2}right) quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
because this holds for $x = 2$, it is enough to prove the inequality obtained by differentiating both sides:
begin{equation}
label{ineq:2}tag{2}
psi(x) leqslant logleft(frac{x}{2}right) + 1 - frac{1}{x} quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
where $psi$ is the Digamma function.



As a special case of the formula
$$
psi(n) = H_{n-1} - gamma,
$$
we have
$$
psi(2) = 1 - gamma < frac{1}{2},
$$
so eqref{ineq:2} holds for $x = 2$.



Differentiating again, we find that it is enough to prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:3}tag{3}
sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} leqslant frac{1}{x} + frac{1}{x^2} quad (x geqslant 2).
end{equation}
Indeed,
$$
sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} < sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n - 1)(x + n)} = sum_{n=1}^inftyleft(frac{1}{x + n - 1} - frac{1}{x + n}right) = frac{1}{x}.
$$
This proves eqref{ineq:3}, therefore eqref{ineq:2}, and therefore eqref{ineq:1}, with strict inequality for $x > 2$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



As already noted in a comment, if $x$ is intended only to have integral values $geqslant 2$, then the inequality (corrected now, so that the inequality sign points in the right direction) follows from the AM-GM inequality, applied to the $x - 1$ numbers $1, 2, ldots, x - 1$.



But the question is naturally read as applying to all real values of $x geqslant 2$, so for the sake of other readers it is also worth proving the inequality in the more general case, with $(x - 1)!$ understood to mean $Gamma(x)$.



To prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:1}tag{1}
logGamma(x) leqslant (x - 1)logleft(frac{x}{2}right) quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
because this holds for $x = 2$, it is enough to prove the inequality obtained by differentiating both sides:
begin{equation}
label{ineq:2}tag{2}
psi(x) leqslant logleft(frac{x}{2}right) + 1 - frac{1}{x} quad (x geqslant 2),
end{equation}
where $psi$ is the Digamma function.



As a special case of the formula
$$
psi(n) = H_{n-1} - gamma,
$$
we have
$$
psi(2) = 1 - gamma < frac{1}{2},
$$
so eqref{ineq:2} holds for $x = 2$.



Differentiating again, we find that it is enough to prove
begin{equation}
label{ineq:3}tag{3}
sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} leqslant frac{1}{x} + frac{1}{x^2} quad (x geqslant 2).
end{equation}
Indeed,
$$
sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n)^2} < sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac{1}{(x + n - 1)(x + n)} = sum_{n=1}^inftyleft(frac{1}{x + n - 1} - frac{1}{x + n}right) = frac{1}{x}.
$$
This proves eqref{ineq:3}, therefore eqref{ineq:2}, and therefore eqref{ineq:1}, with strict inequality for $x > 2$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 5 at 21:38









Calum GilhooleyCalum Gilhooley

4,318629




4,318629












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much. The proof was great!
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 6 at 9:41


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much. The proof was great!
    $endgroup$
    – Shashwat1337
    Jan 6 at 9:41
















$begingroup$
Thank you very much. The proof was great!
$endgroup$
– Shashwat1337
Jan 6 at 9:41




$begingroup$
Thank you very much. The proof was great!
$endgroup$
– Shashwat1337
Jan 6 at 9:41


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063036%2fhow-do-we-prove-that-x-1-leq-fracx2x-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Human spaceflight

Image
Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB]
Read more

File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg

Image
File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search File File history File usage No higher resolution available. DeusFollowingSea.jpg ‎ (238 × 211 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg ) Summary [ edit ] Media data and Non-free use rationale Description Cover art of the Deus CD Following Sea Author or copyright owner Deus Source (WP:NFCC#4) rocksucker.co.uk Date of publication 2012 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Following Sea Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) n.a. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Low res image used in infobox of the article on the album Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) n.a. Fair use Fair use of co
Read more