Typo in Real Analysis Study Page: Absolute Value of x for x<0?

starkind
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
I found a study page which lists the absolute value of x for x<0 as -x. I think this has to be a typo. The study area is real analysis. Does anyone have better information? Maybe it is some special notation?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm pretty sure this is the standard definition.

|x| = x if x>=0 and -x if x<0
 
Ouch. I thought absolute value was a difference expressed as a positive number.

I see in wikipedia that an absolute value is always positive. But the notation seems to indicate otherwise. What gives?

arghh. I see it now. The notation is saying to reverse the sign of a negative number. Thanks
 
Last edited:
starkind said:
Ouch. I thought absolute value was a difference expressed as a positive number.

I see in wikipedia that an absolute value is always positive. But the notation seems to indicate otherwise. What gives?

arghh. I see it now. The notation is saying to reverse the sign of a negative number. Thanks

It is. If x < 0 say x = -5 then you would want the |x| = 5 which is -x.
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top