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:
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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...
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...
Back
Top