Algebraic Methods for Solving Complicated Equations with Variable x

  • Thread starter Thread starter larry91
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on solving the inequality 2x + ax > 3x + 4x for any x in ℝ using algebraic methods. The solution for the variable a is established as a ≥ 6, with the smallest value being a = 6. Participants emphasize the importance of precision in mathematical notation, suggesting the use of "≥" instead of ">" to avoid ambiguity. The Rolle Theorem is mentioned as a method for solving the inequality, although the original poster seeks an alternative algebraic approach.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of algebraic inequalities
  • Familiarity with the Rolle Theorem
  • Knowledge of mathematical notation and precision
  • Basic concepts of real numbers (ℝ)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research algebraic methods for solving inequalities
  • Study the Rolle Theorem and its applications in calculus
  • Explore the implications of using "≥" versus ">" in mathematical expressions
  • Investigate alternative approaches to solving inequalities without calculus
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in algebraic methods for solving inequalities will benefit from this discussion.

larry91
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody!

I have to solve the following equation using algebraic methods: a=? such as 2x + ax > 3x + 4x for any x from ℝ.

I solved it using analytical methods. Using The Rolle Theorem, but I don't want to solve it in that way! The solution for a is 6
 
Physics news on Phys.org
larry91 said:
Hi everybody!

I have to solve the following equation using algebraic methods: a=? such as 2x + ax > 3x + 4x for any x from ℝ.

I solved it using analytical methods. Using The Rolle Theorem, but I don't want to solve it in that way! The solution for a is 6

Be careful: as written, your inequality fails for the real value x = 0. Perhaps you meant "≥". (In Mathematics, we need to be precise!) Also, of course, a solution is _any_ a ≥ 6. Perhaps the question asked for the smallest such a?

Finally, why do you not want to use Rolle's theorem?

RGV
 
Ray Vickson said:
Be careful: as written, your inequality fails for the real value x = 0. Perhaps you meant "≥". (In Mathematics, we need to be precise!) Also, of course, a solution is _any_ a ≥ 6. Perhaps the question asked for the smallest such a?

Finally, why do you not want to use Rolle's theorem?

RGV

Yes! The smallest value for a! and there is ≥. Sorry!
Using Rolle's theorem is quite simple to solve it... I don't want to solve it 'cause I need a solution for it... I just want to find an approach through we can solve it using algebraic methods!
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K