Yazan975
- 30
- 0
But when you get to the step c + b > -ax > d + b you have to divide by -a anyway and the >s flip again. I think it's good in that you get that extra step (to stress the point of what happens when you divide by a negative) but greg1313's method is slightly more efficient.Wilmer said:-c < ax + b < -d
Easier to work with (after re-arranging):
c > -(ax + b) > d
Ya...agree...BUT li'l ole me prefers ? > ? > ? to ? < ? < ?topsquark said:But when you get to the step c + b > -ax > d + b you have to divide by -a anyway and the >s flip again. I think it's good in that you get that extra step (to stress the point of what happens when you divide by a negative) but greg1313's method is slightly more efficient.
-Dan