MHB Solving for x: Clearing Fractions or Finding Common Denominator?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dethrone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fractions
Dethrone
Messages
716
Reaction score
0
Given:

$$\frac{x-2}{x-5}>\frac{x-3}{x-4}$$

How I would normally solve it is to bring everything over to one side and find a common denominator. The answer of which is $x>5$

Now a commentary on this question says to "watch out" for sign changes if you multiply both sides by an expression, so I decided to try it out:

If $x>4$:
$$\frac{(x-2)(x-4)}{x-5}>x-3$$

If $x>5$ and $x>4$:
$$(x-2)(x-4)>(x-3)(x-5)$$

Solving gives us $x>5$, which is the same as above.

Question: Is it just a lucky coincidence that the restriction I applied on the second step $x>4$ just HAPPENED to SATISFY our answer, or could the answer have been say $x<3$ and dividing both sides would have eliminated that solution?

Question 2:

$$\frac{1}{x-2}=\frac{3}{x+2}-\frac{6x}{(x+2)(x-2)}$$

To begin this problem, would you attempt to "clear the fraction" by multiplying by (x-2)(x+2)? I always get paranoid about doing it, because it introduces the solution $x=\pm 2$, which you will then have to replug back into the original equation to confirm, right?

Would attempting to find a common denominator and bring everything to one side be a smarter approach? Or should just clearing the fraction, which is much faster, be preferred? It's just that the latter requires that you resubstitute back into the original equation, whereas the former doesn't require resubstitution. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Rido12 said:
Given:

$$\frac{x-2}{x-5}>\frac{x-3}{x-4}$$

How I would normally solve it is to bring everything over to one side and find a common denominator. The answer of which is $x>5$

Now a commentary on this question says to "watch out" for sign changes if you multiply both sides by an expression, so I decided to try it out:

If $x>4$:
$$\frac{(x-2)(x-4)}{x-5}>x-3$$

If $x>5$ and $x>4$:
$$(x-2)(x-4)>(x-3)(x-5)$$

Solving gives us $x>5$, which is the same as above.

Question: Is it just a lucky coincidence that the restriction I applied on the second step $x>4$ just HAPPENED to SATISFY our answer, or could the answer have been say $x<3$ and dividing both sides would have eliminated that solution?

What You're saying is true in part. Assuming x <4 the inequality is verified for $\frac{7}{2} < x <4$ ...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Rido12 said:
Given:

$$\frac{x-2}{x-5}>\frac{x-3}{x-4}$$

How I would normally solve it is to bring everything over to one side and find a common denominator.
I think that this is definitely the safest strategy. In this case, you would get $$\frac{x-2}{x-5} - \frac{x-3}{x-4} > 0,$$ $$\frac{(x-2)(x-4) - (x-3)(x-5)}{(x-4)(x-5)} > 0,$$ $$\frac{2x-7}{(x-4)(x-5)} > 0.$$ That expression changes sign when any of the linear factors in the numerator or denominator changes sign, telling you that the critical points are when $x = \frac72,\ 4,\ 5$ (as chisigma has pointed out).

Rido12 said:
Question 2:

$$\frac{1}{x-2}=\frac{3}{x+2}-\frac{6x}{(x+2)(x-2)}$$

To begin this problem, would you attempt to "clear the fraction" by multiplying by (x-2)(x+2)? I always get paranoid about doing it, because it introduces the solution $x=\pm 2$, which you will then have to replug back into the original equation to confirm, right?
This is an equation rather than an inequality, so in this case there is nothing to be lost by multiplying by $(x-2)(x+2)$ (except that you have to remember that $x=\pm 2$ cannot be solutions).
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top