Solving the Inequation: How to Find the Solution Set

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fishingspree2
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the inequation abs(x² - 4)^(x² - x - 6) < 1. Participants explore various methods for finding the solution set, including logarithmic manipulation and numerical testing, while addressing the validity of certain steps and logical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes taking the logarithm of both sides of the inequation, questioning if this is valid in the context of inequalities.
  • Another participant challenges the logical structure of the argument, suggesting that the conditions should be treated as exclusive OR rather than simple OR.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about whether both multiplicands can be negative simultaneously and discuss the implications of this on the solution set.
  • One participant suggests a numerical testing approach to verify the boundaries and regions of interest, rather than relying solely on algebraic manipulation.
  • There is a request for clarification on mathematical symbols and alternative methods for solving the inequation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the original poster's steps or the logical implications of the conditions presented. Multiple competing views remain regarding the approach to solving the inequation.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of clarity on the assumptions regarding the behavior of the logarithmic function and the conditions under which the multiplicands are positive or negative. The discussion also reflects varying levels of mathematical expertise among participants.

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 [tex]x^2 - x - 6 < 0[/tex] or [tex]log(abs(x^2-4))<0[/tex]. What you meant to use is exclusive OR, [tex]\oplus[/tex], 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 [tex]x^2 - x - 6 < 0[/tex] or [tex]log(abs(x^2-4))<0[/tex]. What you meant to use is exclusive OR, [tex]\oplus[/tex], 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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K