amorfide
  • amorfide
1/x > 1 how to solve?
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
same way as with an equals sign. just leave that alligator mouth there. you need to clear the fractions. try multiplying both sides by the fractions denominator
amorfide
  • amorfide
okay so i multiply by x on both sides 1>x so why when i have |dw:1350339428053:dw| why when i have this do i multiply by (x-2)² @Sir_Rico_of_Eureka
anonymous
  • anonymous
You just multiply both sides again to clear the fractions. this time however you have one more step. get x by itself

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

amorfide
  • amorfide
on the question i wrote on the picture, i must multiply by (x-2)² not x-2 i want to know why?
amorfide
  • amorfide
@cwrw238
anonymous
  • anonymous
Who said you have to multiply (x-2)^2. Whats the original problem
amorfide
  • amorfide
the book because apparently i will lose a solution if i dont
anonymous
  • anonymous
Whats the original problem
amorfide
  • amorfide
|dw:1350339676275:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
And your book says the solution needs to multiply both sides by (x-2)^2? in the back of the book?
amorfide
  • amorfide
yes because if i only multiply by x-2 i lose a solution i dont see how
amorfide
  • amorfide
@TuringTest
anonymous
  • anonymous
Hm, If you do the math the same answer comes out. Does it give you an answer to the problem
amorfide
  • amorfide
|dw:1350340054622:dw|
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
you have to keep in mind that x-2 could be negative, so you need to consider cases
anonymous
  • anonymous
I see now, if you look closely simply solving they way we did it at first is saying that x<3 and it can't be a negative number because a negative is never bigger than a positive. Therefore at some number x<3 stops being completly true. How i figured it out is plugged in 2 and saw that it equals 1/0 and you cant divide by zero. Therefore it must be a number between two and three. Thats the logical explanation. But I guess I don't know the specific rules taught in your book.
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
if x-2<0 the sign of the inequality would change upon multiplication, but (x-2)^2 can never be negative, so that we can use without changing the sign of the inequality
amorfide
  • amorfide
thank you very much people!
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
welcome!

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.