Absolute quadratic inequalities.

AI Thread Summary
To solve absolute quadratic inequalities, first rewrite the inequality by splitting it into two cases based on the absolute value. For the example given, this leads to two quadratic equations that can be solved to find critical points. These points divide the real number line into intervals, where the sign of the inequality can be tested. The discussion emphasizes that once the intervals are established, it is sufficient to show the inequality holds for "sufficiently large" n, particularly when n exceeds certain values. Ultimately, understanding the behavior of the quadratic functions and their intersections is key to determining the solution set.
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.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top