View Full Version : Solving an Inequality
S_David
Aug26-09, 09:31 AM
Hello,
Where is the mistake in the following solution of the inequality:
\begin{align*}
&\frac{2x-5}{x-2}<1\\
&2x-5<x-2\\
&x<3, x\ne 2
\end{align}
Hello,
Where is the mistake in the following solution of the inequality:
The following is not true:
If a<b, then ac<bc
In fact you have three separate cases, depending on c -- do you know what they are?
HallsofIvy
Aug26-09, 10:09 AM
Hurkyl's point is that you multiplied both sides of the inequality by x- 2 and, since you don't know what x is, you don't know if x- 2 is positive or negative. (Oops, I just gave you two of the three cases Hurkyl asked about!)
My preferred method for solving anything more than linear inequalities is to first solve the corresponding equation. Here, solve [tex]\frac{2x-5}{x-2}= 1[/itex]. The "x" that satisfies that and the "x" that makes the denominator 0 are the only places where the inequality can "change". They divide the real line into three intervals- check one point in each interval to see which give ">".
Hello,
Where is the mistake in the following solution of the inequality:
\begin{align*}
&\frac{2x-5}{x-2}<1\\
&2x-5<x-2\\
&x<3, x\ne 2
\end{align}
And why don't you try:
\frac{2x-5}{x-2} - 1 < 0
?
Then consider these cases
a/b <0
should "a" and /or "b" be positive or negative so that the the fraction a/b would be negative?
Regards.
arildno
Aug26-09, 10:33 AM
Hello,
Where is the mistake in the following solution of the inequality:
\begin{align*}
&\frac{2x-5}{x-2}<1\\
&2x-5<x-2\\
&x<3, x\ne 2
\end{align}
You may split your analysis into two cases:
1) x-2>0,
and
2) x-2<0
You will find that for 2), there are NO solutions, meaning that x must be greater than 2.
Another excelent method in this case is to multiply both sides by (x-2)^2, with the squared assuring that we haven't multiplied by a negative number, and then just re-arrange it to give a quadratic inequality : x^2 - 5x + 6 < 0
S_David
Aug26-09, 03:25 PM
Another excelent method in this case is to multiply both sides by (x-2)^2, with the squared assuring that we haven't multiplied by a negative number, and then just re-arrange it to give a quadratic inequality : x^2 - 5x + 6 < 0
Ok, I can see where I did mistake the inequality. So, we have two cases:
\begin{align}
x-2&>0\\
x-2&<0
\end{align}
In the first case the multiplication does not change the direction of the inequality, so:
\begin{align*}
2x-5&<x-2\\
x&<3
\end{align}
Then the open interval (2,3) is the solution set. In the second case, the direction of the inequality changed, so:
\begin{align*}
2x-5&>x-2\\
x&>3
\end{align}
But x<2, then there is no solution.
The solution provided by uart is a good one, too. Where he eliminated the problem of negative sign possibility in the unknown x.
Actually, I am reviewing the precalculus and calculus books, and such things I forgot because I don't practice it continousely.
Anyway, thank you all guys.
Best regards
You could solve it this way:
\frac{2x-5}{x-2} - 1 < 0
\frac{x-3}{x-2}<0
\begin{bmatrix}
\left\{\begin{matrix}
x-3<0\\
x-2>0
\end{matrix}\right.
\\
\\
\left\{\begin{matrix}
x-3>0\\
x-2<0
\end{matrix}\right.
\end{matrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\left\{\begin{matrix}
x<3\\
x>2
\end{matrix}\right.
\\
\\
\left\{\begin{matrix}
x>3\\
x<2
\end{matrix}\right.
\end{matrix}
Because 3<x<2 is not valid,
the only solution is 2<x<3 or (2,3).
Regards.
S_David
Aug27-09, 08:21 AM
You could solve it this way:
\frac{2x-5}{x-2} - 1 < 0
\frac{x-3}{x-2}<0
\begin{bmatrix}
\left\{\begin{matrix}
x-3<0\\
x-2>0
\end{matrix}\right.
\\
\\
\left\{\begin{matrix}
x-3>0\\
x-2<0
\end{matrix}\right.
\end{matrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\left\{\begin{matrix}
x<3\\
x>2
\end{matrix}\right.
\\
\\
\left\{\begin{matrix}
x>3\\
x<2
\end{matrix}\right.
\end{matrix}
Because 3<x<2 is not valid,
the only solution is 2<x<3 or (2,3).
Regards.
Dear Дьявол,
This method is as described in my calculus book, and yes it is easier than the one I explained earlier. But I wanted to know the different methods to solve the inequality.
Thanks
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.