Solving (x+1)/(2x-3) > 2; why do we take 2x-3>0 while obtaining the solution?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gikiian
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inequality (x+1)/(2x-3) > 2 and the reasoning behind requiring the denominator, 2x-3, to be greater than zero rather than simply not equal to zero. Participants explore the implications of the signs of the numerator and denominator in solving the inequality, examining various cases and their contributions to potential solutions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the condition 2x-3 > 0 is necessary, suggesting that 2x-3 ≠ 0 should suffice.
  • Others argue that a comprehensive approach requires considering all possible cases for the signs of the numerator and denominator, noting that if one is positive and the other negative, the left-hand side would be negative, thus not satisfying the inequality.
  • A participant outlines a systematic method to solve the inequality by subtracting 2 from both sides, leading to a new fraction and identifying critical numbers to establish candidate intervals for solutions.
  • Another participant discusses the scenario where both the numerator and denominator are negative, concluding that this leads to a contradiction, thus reinforcing the assumption that both must be positive in this case.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of the condition 2x-3 > 0, with some advocating for a broader analysis of sign cases while others focus on specific conditions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to take in solving the inequality.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of considering the signs of both the numerator and denominator, but there is no consensus on the necessity of requiring the denominator to be greater than zero specifically.

gikiian
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
I mean it's okay to take 2x-3≠0 as a necessary condition, but I can't actually grasp the fact that we have to take the denominator to be '>0' and not merely '≠0'.
A little guidance will be very much appreciated :)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
gikiian said:
Solving (x+1)/(2x-3) > 2; why do we take 2x-3>0

If you solve the inequality in a deductive manner, you don't only look at the case 2x -3 > 0. You look at all the possible cases for the sign of the numerator and denominator of the fraction (x+1)/(2x+3). You say that the cases when one is positive and the other is negative can't povide any solutions since the left hand side would be negative, so less than 2. In another case, both the numerator and denominator are positive. In that case x+1 > 0 and 2x+3 > 0, so x> -1 and 2x > -3, x > -3/2.

You have to look at all the cases to work the problem in a systematic manner. Perhaps the materials you are looking at know some clever shortcut.
 
Stephen Tashi said:
If you solve the inequality in a deductive manner, you don't only look at the case 2x -3 > 0.
You look at all the possible cases for the sign of the numerator and denominator of
the fraction (x+1)/(2x+3).
You say that the cases when one is positive and the other is negative can't povide
any solutions since the
left hand side would be negative, so less than 2. In another case, both the
numerator and denominator are positive.
In that case x+1 > 0 and 2x+3 > 0, so x> -1 and 2x > -3, x > -3/2.

You have to look at all the cases to work the problem in a systematic manner.
Perhaps the materials you are looking at know some clever shortcut.

The above is not one of the correct approaches.


Mine:


Subract 2 from each side, and that gives a new fraction that is greater
than 0. Then find the critical numbers to establish the candidate
intervals from which to choose for the solution:


After subtracting 2 and simplifying the fraction:


[itex]\dfrac{-3x + 7}{2x - 3} > 0[/itex]


Critical numbers:

-3x + 7 = 0

3x = 7

x = 7/3

-------------------

2x - 3 = 0

2x = 3

x = 3/2

-------------------


Then the candidate intervals to choose from for the solution are:

(-oo, 3/2), (3/2, 7/3), and (7/3, oo).


Upon checking test values, it is shown that the solution is:


(3/2, 7/3),


or equivalently, as


3/2 < x < 7/3
 
since the fraction on the left is greater than 2 > 0, both the numerator and the denominator must have the same sign.

let's look at the case where both the numerator and the denominator are < 0:

x+1 < 0 => x < -1.
2x - 3 < 0 => x < 3/2.

so for both these to be true, we take the more restrictive requirement: x < -1.

since with that assumption, we have 2x - 3 < 0 as well, we have:

x + 1 < 4x - 6 (when we multiply by a negative number, we reverse the inequality)
1 < 3x - 6
7 < 3x
7/3 < x

but this is a contradiction, x can't be BOTH < -1 AND > 7/3.

so the case where both numerator and denominator are negative, does not lead to any valid solutions.

so we may assume, without loss of generality (in THIS particular case) that both numerator and denominator are > 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K