Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

X > 0, but why doesn't 1/x > 0?

  1. Mar 13, 2015 #1
    If a > b, where a > 0 and b > 0, then 1/a < 1/b.

    But what if b = 0? For example, if x > 0, meaning if x is a positive number, then it should be that 1/x > 0.

    Yes, yes, I know I would be dividing by 0, but it doesn't make sense intuitively. If x is a positive number, then obviously 1/x is a positive number. So it should be that 1/x > 0.

    Can somebody explain what is going on here?

    Thank you.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 13, 2015 #2

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    You have the answer yourself, 1/0 is "undefined" for a reason.

    ... well 1/0 makes no sense at all. If you intuitively expect it to then your intuition is wrong.

    To make sense of things, you have to ask, instead, what happens to 1/x when x approaches zero trough positive reals... i.e. for that case that b is arbitrarily small.
    Try that.
     
  4. Mar 13, 2015 #3
    If x approaches 0 from the right, then 1/x will become arbitrarily (positively) large, which is definitely still greater than 0. Hm... I still don't see what could be wrong.

    Before I posted, I Googled "inequality properties" and I found a popular school study guide called "Sparknotes", which has a reputation for being inaccurate. However, on their page on inequalities:

    http://www.sparknotes.com/math/algebra1/inequalities/section2.rhtml

    , they mention that if a > 0, then 1/a > 0 (see the attached screenshot from the page). Is this wrong too? Well, it wouldn't be a surprise if it was.

    Thank you.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Mar 13, 2015 #4

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Well, run a test. If a = 2, then is a > 0? What about 1/2? Is 1/2 > 0? These are trivial cases which show that if a > 0, then 1/a > 0.
     
  6. Mar 13, 2015 #5

    symbolipoint

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor
    Gold Member

    Approaching a value and equality to a value are different things.
     
  7. Mar 13, 2015 #6

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    There's nothing wrong with that statement.

    No. That is correct.
    I don't see how you would have thought that may be wrong and it is simple to check as SteamKing suggests.

    The rule you started with, 1/a < 1/b : a>b>0, simply does not apply for b=0, just like it does not apply for a=b or or a<b.
    Further, "1/a > 0" only holds for a>0 and "1/a" is undefined for a=0.

    So what is the problem?
     
  8. Mar 13, 2015 #7
    Oh, well, there is nothing wrong, then. I thought that rule was wrong because if x > 0, then dividing 1 by both sides of the inequality yields 1/x > 1/0. My concern was that 1/0 is not defined. There is clearly something wrong with the algebra, but what is wrong?

    Thank you.
     
  9. Mar 13, 2015 #8

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    If I follow you, you are asking if: $$\frac{1}{a>b} = \frac{1}{a} > \frac{1}{b}$$ is proper algebra?
     
  10. Mar 13, 2015 #9
    Rather, something like this:

    If a ≠ 0 and b ≠ 0, then if a = b, then 1/a = 1/b.

    Well, I'm probably not using the inequality sign correctly and trying to use equality rules for the "greater than" sign. But basically, if x > 0, then a "=" x, and b "=" 0, and using the algebra "rule" above, if x > 0, then 1/x > 1/0, which is incorrect.
     
  11. Mar 13, 2015 #10

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Certainly a sequence of statements that is true for an equality need not be true for an inequality.

    However, I am having trouble figuring out what you are talking about.
    ... this would be a description of some algebra - but a vague description.
    "Divide 1 by both sides of the inequality" does not make mathematical sense, so I suspect this is where you have erred.
    Can you show a series of algebraic steps that start with x>0 and end with 1/x > 1/0 ?
    After all: if the former is true then the latter is false.

    i.e. what is it that is wrong?
     
  12. Mar 13, 2015 #11
    ##a>b##, then multiply both sides by ##1/ab## (with ##a,b>0##) and obtain ##1/b>1/a##

    ##x>0##, then mutliply both sides by ##1/x^2## and obtain ##1/x>0##
     
  13. Mar 13, 2015 #12

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    @FredericChopin: soarce's post is the kind of thing I was trying to get you to do.
    Does that help?
     
  14. Mar 13, 2015 #13

    symbolipoint

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why the continued confusion? Approaching and Equaling are not the same.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: X > 0, but why doesn't 1/x > 0?
  1. X/0 = ? (Replies: 8)

  2. (x/0) / (x/0) = 1 (Replies: 42)

Loading...