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

  • Thread starter Thread starter FredericChopin
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the inequality involving positive numbers and division by zero. It clarifies that while 1/x is indeed greater than 0 for positive x, the expression 1/0 is undefined, leading to misconceptions in algebraic manipulation. Participants emphasize that the rules of inequalities do not apply when b equals zero, and dividing by zero is not mathematically valid. The conversation highlights the importance of distinguishing between approaching a value and equating to it, reinforcing that algebraic operations must adhere to established mathematical principles. Ultimately, the misunderstanding stems from incorrectly applying equality rules to inequalities.
FredericChopin
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You have the answer yourself, 1/0 is "undefined" for a reason.

but it doesn't make sense intuitively
... 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.
 
  • Like
Likes DrewD
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.
 

Attachments

  • PossiblyWrong.png
    PossiblyWrong.png
    2.4 KB · Views: 590
FredericChopin said:
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.

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.
 
Approaching a value and equality to a value are different things.
 
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.
There's nothing wrong with that statement.

[sparknotes] mention that if a > 0, then 1/a > 0 (see the attached screenshot from the page). Is this wrong too?
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?
 
Simon Bridge said:
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?

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.
 
I thought that rule was wrong because if x > 0, then dividing 1 by both sides of the inequality yields 1/x > 1/0 ... There is clearly something wrong with the algebra, but what is wrong?
If I follow you, you are asking if: $$\frac{1}{a>b} = \frac{1}{a} > \frac{1}{b}$$ is proper algebra?
 
Simon Bridge said:
If I follow you, you are asking if: $$\frac{1}{a>b} = \frac{1}{a} > \frac{1}{b}$$ is proper algebra?

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.
 
  • #10
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.
if x > 0, then dividing 1 by both sides of the inequality yields 1/x > 1/0
... 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?
 
  • #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##
 
  • Like
Likes Simon Bridge
  • #12
@FredericChopin: soarce's post is the kind of thing I was trying to get you to do.
Does that help?
 
  • #13
Why the continued confusion? Approaching and Equaling are not the same.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top