MHB Why is 2x - 4 less than 1 in this inequality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Casio1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the inequality 2x - 4 < 1, where the confusion arises regarding the interpretation of the solution. The correct manipulation leads to x < 2.5, indicating that values less than 2.5 satisfy the inequality, but not the value itself. It is clarified that substituting x = 2.5 into the original inequality results in a false statement, confirming that 2.5 is not a solution. Participants emphasize that the inequality does not require equality, and values less than 2.5 are valid solutions. Ultimately, the misunderstanding is resolved, highlighting that all values up to, but not including, 2.5 can be considered valid solutions.
Casio1
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone

I have an inequality

2x - 4 < 1

I had to double check it to ensure I wrote it down correctly.

2x < 1 + 4

x < 2.5

2(2.5) - 4 < 1

1 < 1

Is this me or am I missing something?

2x - 4 < 1 reads to me as 2x - 4 should be less than < 1 and not equal to it?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In order to check it you should try numbers less than $5/2$, not equal to. Once you plugged it in the original equation it was good that it wasn't a solution, or else something would have went horribly wrong. Try $x=2$. (Nod)
 
Yes I see what you mean when putting 2 into the inequality, but I am making that figure up knowing it will be less than 1?

My misunderstanding seems to be that finding the value of 'x' in this example does not prove the inequality correct?

I must be missing something here as x = 2.5 but for some reason in this example 2x - 4 < 1 mathematically does not work?

2(2.5) - 4 < 1

Is it not a typo error?

should it not be;

2(2.5) - 4 < 1
 
The values of $x$ you have found are the ones less than two and half, not equal to. Why should it be $2x+4 \leq 1$? You don't need equality. Geometrically, you have the points belonging to the line $y=2x+4$ and below the line $y=1$, but you discount the intersection, which happens at the point $x= 5/2$.

Also, note that $5/2$ is not less than itself, thus it cannot be a solution! If it doesn't belong to the solution set, it cannot satisfy the given inequality. (Nod)
 
You have found that x must be less than 2.5, so as stated above, if you let x = 2.5, then your inequality will not be true.

Let x = 2.5 - y where y may be as small or large as we desire, as long as 0 < y.

Now, substituting this into the original inequality, we find:

2(2.5 - y) - 4 < 1

5 - 2y - 4 < 1

1 - 2y < 1

0 < 2y

0 < y
 
OK I think I have got it now. I find a value for 'x' which I did at 5/2, which is in decimal form 2.5.

This value is definitely in the inequality, so is a strick value. The misunderstanding I think I had was in understanding that ALL values up to 2.5 can be considered, so if I said;

x = - 2, which is < 2.5, I could write;2(- 2) - 4 < 1- 4 - 4 < 1I understand it know, thanks everyone. :cool:
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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...
Back
Top