Is My Graphing Method for (1/x)<x<1 Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter garyljc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving the inequality (1/x) < x < 1. Initially, the user believes the solution is -1 < x < 1, but others clarify that the correct approach leads to no solution for the first part of the inequality. They demonstrate that for the case where both the numerator and denominator are positive, the conditions contradict each other, resulting in no valid solutions. In the second case, where both are negative, the solution is narrowed down to -1 < x < 0, which is valid under the given constraints. Ultimately, the correct solution for the inequality is confirmed as -1 < x < 0.
garyljc
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Hi all ,
could someone help me out with this
(1/x)<x<1

i tried by drawing the graphs
and separated it in 2 equations
but the answer that i found was -1<x<1
is it correct ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
i got a new breakthrough haha
this equation does not have a solution set

correct me if I'm wrong
if first do the first 2 steps of the equation ,it follows that 1/x < x
therefore x^2>1
second equation will be that x<1
therefore there is no solution
am i correct ?
 
Hi garyljc! :smile:
garyljc said:
1/x < x
therefore x^2>1

am i correct ?

Nope! :smile:

Hint: If a < b and c < 0, is ac < bc? :wink:
 
1/x<x
1/x - x<0
(1-x^2)/x<0
(x^2 - 1)/x>0

case 1: numerator and denominator are positive
numerator
x^2-1>0
(x+1)(x-1)>0
By wavy curve method
x<-1 or x>1
denominator
x>0
so solution for this case is x>1
but x<1 (given in the question)
hence no solution in this case.

case 2: numerator and denominator are negative
x^2-1<0
(x+1)(x-1)<0
By wavy curve method
-1<x<1
x<0
so solution for this case is -1<x<0
but x<1
hence solution for this case is -1<x<0

SO THE ANSWER IS -1<X<0
 
thanks to both lizzie and tim
 
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...
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 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top