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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top