Linear Inequalities: Error in book?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the correct interval notation for the inequality x ≤ -2, with the user providing the answer (-∞, -2] while the book incorrectly states (∞, -2]. Participants agree that the book contains multiple errors, leading to confusion and self-doubt among readers. There is a consensus that such mistakes are likely typos and should not be taken seriously. Overall, the conversation highlights the frustration with the book's inaccuracies.
Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Give the interval notation for the inequality: \displaystyle{x\leq -2

My answer is: \displaystyle{(-\infty, -2]}

Book answer is: \displaystyle{(\infty, -2]}

?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You're right. Looks like a typo in the book.
 
mathman said:
You're right. Looks like a typo in the book.


Thanks. This book is absolutely riddled with errors of this type; enough to make you often doubt yourself after successfully completing some problems.

I hope the editor doesn't have any competition...:rolleyes:
 
When you read stuff like that you should know that it has to be a typo, because you know that it cannot make sense.
 
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...
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