Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

It looks like extremely simple, but I'm totally confused

5(x + 2) + 2(x-3) < 3(x - 1) + 4x
5x + 10 + 2x - 6 < 3x - 3 + 4x
7x - 4 < 7x - 3
7x - 7x < -3 + 4

0 < 1 !!? <-- How is that?

Why do I lost $x$ variable and it leads to nowhere?! Thanks

share|improve this question
2  
If you had done the computations correctly, it would just tell you the original inequality holds for every $x$. But you didn't... –  David Mitra Dec 12 '12 at 17:36
    
How can it hold for all $x$? Setting $x=0$ gives $4<-3$ which is clearly false. –  copper.hat Dec 12 '12 at 17:42
2  
There is a mistake on line 3 of the computation. The $-4$ should be $+4$. –  copper.hat Dec 12 '12 at 17:45

4 Answers 4

up vote 4 down vote accepted

If you simplify, you obtain the inequality $7x+4 < 7x-3$ which is the same as $4<-3$. Since this is never true, the inequality is false, regardless of the value of $x$.

share|improve this answer

You are correct. The conclusion you came to means that for all $x$ the inequality you stated is true

EDIT: As De Vito pointed out, if you arrive correctly at a false statement this necessarily means that the assumption is false. In other words if the implication $P\Rightarrow Q$ is true and $Q$ is false then $P$ is also false.

But, if you arrive correctly at a true statement, this doesn't necessarily mean that the assumption is true. For that you will need $P\Leftrightarrow Q$ and not simply $P\Rightarrow Q$. In our case, you have shown $5(x + 2) + 2(x-3) < 3(x - 1) + 4x\Leftrightarrow 4<-3$

share|improve this answer
    
$0<1$ is true. You might want to fix that and you receive an upvote. –  CBenni Dec 12 '12 at 17:35
1  
No, it is true for all $x$. –  Ross Millikan Dec 12 '12 at 17:36
1  
I corrected it. –  Nameless Dec 12 '12 at 17:36
    
Careful: Proving a true statement from an assumption often does NOT mean the assumption is true. (In this case it does, but more should be said). –  Jason DeVito Dec 12 '12 at 17:37
    
The statement is never true. –  copper.hat Dec 12 '12 at 17:44

Getting a result like $0<1$ means that the claim is true for all x. In other words, for any $x$ you input, the inequation holds true. (For all of your steps taken were equivalent to their predecessor, and as such did not change the truth/false value of the inequation. In some cases, mathematicians like to denote that by adding "$\Leftrightarrow$" at the start of each line.)

And there is a error in your computation aswell. I know no (reasonable) definition of $\mathbb{Z}$ such that $10-6=-4$

share|improve this answer
1  
Careful: Proving a true statement from an assumption often does NOT mean the assumption is true. (In this case it does, but more should be said). –  Jason DeVito Dec 12 '12 at 17:38
    
Mmh. Do you mean I should mention that all of the steps taken are equivalent to their predecessor? –  CBenni Dec 12 '12 at 17:41
    
@JasonDeVito: It does when the steps are reversible, which they are here (and correct, too, which needs some work) –  Ross Millikan Dec 12 '12 at 17:42
    
Yup, that would fix it. –  Jason DeVito Dec 12 '12 at 17:42
1  
I upvoted 3 answers cause they are informative enough to me and yours as well +1 –  bad_boy Dec 12 '12 at 18:01

It's like $a_{1}y+a_{1}y+……a{n}y+C<b_{1}y+b_{2}y+……b{m}y+D$

if$\sum a_{i}=\sum b_{j}$ the unkown y will certainly disappear. You can think like this.

Let A=1+2+4

Let B=3+5+(-1)

Then A=B, A and B are coefficient of y for the left and right.

Then y disappear.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.