Solving the Inequation: How to Find the Solution Set

  • Thread starter Thread starter fishingspree2
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving the inequality abs(x² - 4)^(x² - x - 6) < 1. The original poster attempts to take the logarithm of both sides, leading to the expression (x² - x - 6)*(log(abs(x² - 4))) < 0, and derives the solution set. However, a participant points out a logical error in the use of "OR" instead of "exclusive OR" in step 2, suggesting that both conditions cannot be negative simultaneously. Other contributors suggest numerical testing of boundary points to verify the solution and discuss the importance of confirming the positivity of multiplicands. The conversation highlights different approaches to solving the inequality and clarifies the logical implications of the conditions involved.
fishingspree2
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Hello,

abs(x² - 4)^(x² - x - 6) < 1

here's my work:

1. taking the log of both sides (can i do this even if it's an inequality?)
log (abs(x² - 4)^(x² - x - 6)) < log 1
which is
(x² - x - 6)*(log(abs(x² - 4))) < 0

2. I can then say:
(x² - x - 6) < 0
OR
log(abs(x² - 4)) < 0

3. Solving:
(x² - x - 6) < 0
gives: -2 < x < 3

log(abs(x² - 4)) < 0
gives: -sqrt(5) < x < -sqrt(3) and sqrt(3) < x < sqrt(5)

so the solution set is:
]-√5 , -2[ U ]√5 , 3[ U ]-√3,√3[

Questions:
1. Is my work correct?
2. How would you do it, and can you please show work?

Thank you

EDIT: It's not really a homework... I was just wondering how would you guys do it :S
Sorry
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your step 2. is wrong I believe. Logically, EITHER x^2 - x - 6 &lt; 0 or log(abs(x^2-4))&lt;0. What you meant to use is exclusive OR, \oplus, which is defined as (P AND ~Q) OR (~P AND Q).
 
Last edited:
fishingspree2 said:
Hello,

abs(x² - 4)^(x² - x - 6) < 1

here's my work:

1. taking the log of both sides (can i do this even if it's an inequality?)
log (abs(x² - 4)^(x² - x - 6)) < log 1
which is
(x² - x - 6)*(log(abs(x² - 4))) < 0

2. I can then say:
(x² - x - 6) < 0
OR
log(abs(x² - 4)) < 0

3. Solving:
(x² - x - 6) < 0
gives: -2 < x < 3

log(abs(x² - 4)) < 0
gives: -sqrt(5) < x < -sqrt(3) and sqrt(3) < x < sqrt(5)

so the solution set is:
]-√5 , -2[ U ]√5 , 3[ U ]-√3,√3[

Questions:
1. Is my work correct?
2. How would you do it, and can you please show work?

Thank you

EDIT: It's not really a homework... I was just wondering how would you guys do it :S
Sorry

Why not just test it numerically. See if a point on the boundary gives you the value 1. See if a point inside of the boundary gives you a value less then one. See if a point outside the boundary gives you a value greater then one.
 
Sorry, my maths skills aren't that advanced.

What is the name of the crosshair symbol? Thank you

Also, I'd like to know some other ways to do it
 
jhicks said:
Your step 2. is wrong I believe. Logically, EITHER x^2 - x - 6 &lt; 0 or log(abs(x^2-4))&lt;0. What you meant to use is exclusive OR, \oplus, which is defined as (P AND ~Q) OR (~P AND Q).

Really? How do we know they both aren't less then zero? Does it really matter anyway. I don't know why the original poster bothered keeping the inequality signs. I would solve the problem by finding all possible intersections and then numerically testing to see which side of the boundaries the region of interest lies in.
 
John Creighto said:
Really? How do we know they both aren't less then zero? Does it really matter anyway. I don't know why the original poster bothered keeping the inequality signs. I would solve the problem by finding all possible intersections and then numerically testing to see which side of the boundaries the region of interest lies in.

Like in this video? http://youtube.com/watch?v=pV3cZ1zbuvs
 
John Creighto said:
Really? How do we know they both aren't less then zero?

I was thinking that the only regions that will solve that were going to come from when one multiplicand or the other - but not both - were less than zero. The OP's work makes no attempt to confirm that the other multiplicand is positive when one is negative. Your suggestion is probably easier to implement though.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top