Strict inequality implies non-strict inequality

631 Views Asked by At

We know that for any two numbers $a$ and $b$, if $a\le b$, then $a=b$ or $a<b$

I want to prove that the converse is true, i.e. if: $$a=b\implies a\le b\tag{1}$$ and in particular if: $$a<b \implies a\le b\tag{2}$$

When the condition (1) or (2) is satisfied, we know that the non-strict inequality holds, since only 1 condition must be satisfied.

How can one prove it in a strict way?


Precisely, I was during the process to prove that if:

$$\lvert a\rvert\le b \space\space\space\text{then}\space\space -b\le a \le b$$

For $a\ge0$, proof works nicely and I have the inequality.

Problem occurs when I consider case, when $a<0$:

If $a<0$, then $\lvert a\rvert=-a\le b$, so $a\ge-b$.

Since $b\ge0$ (because $\lvert a\rvert\ge0$) and $a<0$, then $a<b$

(because if $a<b$ and $b<c$ then $a<c$)

But I need to prove that $a\le b$.

Obviously I can consider the cases for $a\ge 0$ and $a\le 0$, but I would like to arrive at satisfactory answer for $a<0$.

2

There are 2 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

Incredibly, it's the definition. Given an order of type $>$, which is a strict partial order, you can define another one $\geq$, which is a non-strict partial order, as $a\geq b$ if and only if $a > b $ or $a = b $. This way, you ensure that all the expected properties are valid, as the one you are trying to prove, but it's valid by definition.

0
On

There is nothing to prove. This is just the meaning of "or" - the truth of $A$ implies the truth of $(A \text{ or} B)$.