Absolute quadratic inequalities.

Kelvie
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
A bit of a newbie question, but I was wondering how does one go about solving these?

For example: (I was working on a problem posted on another thread on Homework Help)
<br /> |3n-4| &lt; 9\epsilon n^2 + 3 \epsilon<br />
Epsilon is a small positive number of course :P

The tricky part is when I split it up..
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> -9\epsilon n^2 - 3n - 3\epsilon + 4 &lt; 0 \\<br /> 9\epsilon n^2 -3n + 3\epsilon + 4 &gt; 0<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Wouldn't the solution for n then be 4 inequalities? That doesn't make sense, does it?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
try factoring the quadratic and analyze according to the sign of the factors
 
A general method for solving inequalities is to solve the equation first. The points mark the boundaries of the intervals on which the inequality is true.

In this case, solve the equation |3n-4|= 9&epsilon;n2+ 3&epsilon;

If 3n-4> 0 that is equivalent to 3n-4= 9&epsilon;n2+ 3&epsilon; which is the quadratic equation 9&epsilon;n2- 3n+ (4+3&epsilon)= 0.

If 3n-4< 0 that is equivalent 4- 3n= 9&epsilon;n2+ 3&epsilon; which is the quadratic equation 9&epsilon;n2+ 3n- (4+3&epsilon)= 0.

Those two equations have 4 solutions which divide all real numbers into 5 intervals. You can choose one point in each interval to determine whether you get ">" or "<".
 
Hmm.. I was afraid it would come to this.

I was trying to solve this for a delta-epsilon proof of a limit at infinity (finding what N of epsilon could be that is < |n|.

I got my two quadratic equations, so technically, the smallest one could be N? or the largest? Or do all of them work?

Because there are two quadratic inequalities to solve, this puts a bound on what n could be, so it would be redundant to say that |n| is greater than all N of epsilon.

Or am I missing something very painfully obvious? :P
 
In that case, you don't really need to solve the inequality, just show that it is true for "sufficiently large" n. Certainly as soon as n> 4/3, 3n- 4 will be positive so you don't need the second of the ways you are "splitting up" the absolute value.
From 9\epsilon n^2 + 3n + 3\epsilon - 4 0 0
you can use the quadratic formula to determine where left side is larger than 0. If that is true for all n larger than some number, you are done.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top