MHB Rational Inequalities: Solve & Understand | Math

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the inequality \( \frac{1}{x} > 2 \) by analyzing different cases based on the sign of \( x \). It emphasizes the importance of considering the direction of the inequality when multiplying by a variable, particularly when \( x \) is negative. The solution is derived by determining intervals: for \( x > 0 \), the valid range is \( 0 < x < \frac{1}{2} \), while no values for \( x < 0 \) satisfy the inequality. The method involves checking values within the identified intervals to confirm which satisfy the original inequality. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the solution set is \( 0 < x < \frac{1}{2} \).
Achi_kun
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
E5C700FB-2211-45B3-8368-F2318DAF4F6B.jpeg
A1B4D6DC-C9F9-45EB-A985-E49539667A1B.jpeg
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Uhh ... fill in the blanks? Have you worked on any of these?
 
skeeter said:
Uhh ... fill in the blanks? Have you worked on any of these?
Idk how the solution works
 
for $\dfrac{1}{x} > 2$

step 1. $\dfrac{1}{x} - \dfrac{2}{1} > 0$

combine the two fractions by using a common denominator
 
Personally, I wouldn't do it that say.
From $\frac{1}{x}> 2%$, multiply on both sides by x.
But you have to be careful with that! Unlike with an equation, multiplying on both sides by negative number reverses the ">" sign. So do two cases:

1) If x> 0 then $1>2x$. Divide on both sides by the positive number 2: $\frac{1}{2}> x$..
Since we are requiring that x be positve, we have $0< x< \frac{1}{2}$

2) If x< 0 then $1< 2x$. Divide on both sides by the positive number 2: $\frac{1}{2}< x$, But since we are requiring that x be negative, that is not possible.

The solution is $0<x \frac{1}{2}$.

It is also true that, for continuous functions, g and f, to change from f(x)<g(x) to f(x)> g(x), we have to go through f(x)= g(x) or a poinr where either f or g is undefined.

So start by solving the equation $\frac{1}{x}= 2$. That is the same as $1= 2x$, or $x=\frac{1}{2}$. I is also true that $\frac{1}{x}$ is undefined for x= 0. That divides the real numbers into three intervals, x< 0, 0< x< 1/2, and x> 1/2. We need only check one value of x in each interval. For x< 0 take x=-1. Then 1/x= -1 which is NOT larger than 2 so no x less than 0 satisfies 1/x> 2. For 0< x< 1/2 we can take x=1/4. Then 1/x= 4 which is greater than 2. Every number betwen 0 and 1/2 satisfies the inequalty. Finally take x= 1. Then 1/x=1 which is not larger than 2. No x larger than 1/2 satisfies the inequality.
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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