Derp, pressed enter during in the title bar.

I feel incredibly stupid for asking, but I need help on this problem:

x/(4-x)<3
The solution is x>4 and x<3.
My question is, how do I get to x>4? Can someone show me the steps, because my mind is blanking.

Thanks...

12 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

wha grade are you in?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I see madface x/, angry cyborg? (4-x), and a heart <3

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks for Everyday Genius: SquareLogic! Was a tough puzzle.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

this is very easy, i can do it on a paper and take a picture for you but right now it's late and i'm lying on my bed. Sorry.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Could you simply write it out in text?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If nobody do it in 1 or 2 hours, i'll make it on paper scan ane send you.
Now i'm on the way to work

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Can't you just say the solution is x =/= 4?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No....

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

nope
3.5 does not meet requirements

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks for Skyrim.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Do not say thanks for . . . the nozzle.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If the number on the bottom is greater than 4 it will result in a negative number on the bottom. Divide a positive by a negative and you get a negative, and we all know a negative number is less than 3. That is how x>4 is an answer too. Watch out for divisions in these problems.

After multiple fast edits, decided to cut everything out but this. Hope I helped.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

^ this

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I understand that, but I need to solve for x.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Since this was kinda ignored...

Here you go:

x(4 + x)/((4 - x)(4 + x)) < 3

(4x + x^2)/(16 - x^2) < 3

4x + x^2 < 3(16 - x^2)

4x + x^2 < 48 - 3x^2

4x^2 + 4x - 48 < 0

4(x^2 + x - 12) < 0

x^2 + x - 12 < 0

(x + 4)(x - 3) < 0

Therefore, x > 4 or x < 3.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your answer implies that x > 3 and x > -4.

You messed up from
(4x + x^2)/(16 - x^2) < 3
to
4x + x^2/3(16 - x^2)

you don't divide both sides by 3, you have to subtract both sides by 3

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I didn't divide it. I multiplied (16 - x^2) with 3.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

NEVERMIND. I am right.

When you divide by a negative, it reverses the inequality sign, so...

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

At any step your inequality should be true then with a true value of the original. Use 5, greater than 4 so it should be true, (5+4)(5-3)<0 == 9*2<0 == 18 < 0

:x

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Factoring makes me rage so fucking hard.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You don't even have to factor any polynomials in this one. Highest degree for x is only 1.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Personally, I don't think you can SOLVE for x>4, it is more or less proven due to the fact that 4 just makes you divide by 0 and examples that anything greater than 4 works.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I got a terrible infection when I was 14 and had to have my math gland removed.

Tragic, really.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is what confuses me,

x(4 + x)/((4 - x)(4 + x)) < 3

(4x + x^2)/(16 - x^2) < 3

How does x(4 + x)/

Become 4x+ x^2 ?

Is it becomes 4x?+ x = x2 on one side? where the main X is ?

<-- noob in math

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not entirely sure what you mean by that last bit.

x(4 + x)

x 4 = 4x
+
x
x = x^2

x(4 + x) = 4x + x^2

Not sure I can explain this bit any more simply, unless it is something else you are confused about.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

clicky
Meh, I need a tablet

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I appreciate that, but it doesn't really isolate x. You just created a new equation and plugged in values, something which I could have done with the original equation.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Haven't done this in years, so, sorry >_<

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Almost good

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

SteamGifts.com: "Where you can find kind people to give you free games, and tutors for that homework you put for the last minute".

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

True Story....

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's the solution, bro, but not the "way" of it. It doesn't show how it got to that answer algebraically.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ah you're right. wolframalpha were better for ages :-/

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

As long as the answer is right, the process must have been right.

I say draw a dishwasher.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just checked your steam profile.
Damned!!!
How old are you? Most of your games are ESRB "M for mature" or PEGI "18+".
You has such homework in you University?
facepalm.jpg

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

would love such a university!

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

;)

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

sorry but isn't the question middle school level?!

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes, it is, in my opinion.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You guys haven't even solved the question...

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

okay, first attempt was a fail, complete version in reply:

multiply both sides by (x^2-8x+16), if you factor out a negative of (4-x) it's -(x-4), so I got (-x)(x-4)<3x^2-24x+48. from here bring everything over to the right, you now have 0<4x^2-28x+48, now factor out a 4 and divide it to the left side (essentially getting rid of it), and factor the trinomial into: 0<(x-3)(x-4). again i haven't done anything after that but you can prove from here that it will only be true if both binomials equate to positve or negative, both are positive when x is greater than 4, and both are negative when x is less than 3

Sorry keep on deleting, but i think it was a false alarm...

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

alternately you really just need to find the 0s, since the graph of the x^2-7x+12 shows where the values are true and aren't true, since it's the trinomial is greater than 0, true values are above the x-axis, false values on or below the x-axis, thus the range of x values that make the inequality true are those above the x-axis being <3 and >4

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

x/(4-x)<3

(x-4)^2 x/(4-x) < 3 (x-4)^2

(x-4)^2 -x/(x-4) < 3 (x-4)^2

-x (x-4) < 3 (x^2 - 8x + 16)

-x^2 + 4x < 3x^2 - 24x + 48

4x < 4x^2 - 24x + 48

0 < 4x^2 - 28x + 48

0 < 4 (x^2 - 7x + 12)

0 < x^2 - 7x + 12

0 < (x-4)(x-3)

true if:

(x-4)>0 and (x-3)>0

in this case, true only if x>4

or if:

(x-4)<0 and (x-3)<0

in this case, true only if x<3

the less wordy version of what i said

or if you view it the alternative way:

a=1

b=-7

c=12

z=(7+/-sqrt(49-48))/2

z=(7+/-1)/2

z=8/2,6/2

z=4,3

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It really really really does not have to be that complicated.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I did mine algebraically without picking numbers to subs in, so meh

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So one way you get x>3 and the other you get x<3? Where does the x>4 come in? All you did was point an arrow at it...

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

OMFG!
You are really sooooo sloooow poke.
Wait few minutes.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So if it's simultaneously two answers at once, how do you get to the total..?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If something should be bigger than 3 and bigger than 4 same time, we may ignore "bigger than 3" cause if something meet "bigger than 4" requirements it will meet "bigger than 3", isn't it?
So, we use only "bigger than 4".
Sorry, my math is much better than my english.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I may be able to pull this off and get a good mark on it. Thanks.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You'll eventually find out that it's possible to have both as answers.
It could also be written as (-∞, 3) U (4, ∞), which basically means all real numbers except every number between 3 and 4

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

x/(4-x)<3

x/(4-x)-3<0

x/(4-x)-3(4-x)/(4-x)<0

(x-3(4-x))/(4-x)<0

(4x-12)/(4-x)<0

(4x-12)(1/(4-x))<0

4x-12<0 AND 1/(4-x)<0

4x-12<0 AND (1/(4-x))(4-x)^2<0*(4-x)^2

4x<12 AND 4-x<0

x<3 AND x>4

Q.E.D.

It's amazing what a good night's sleep can do for your math skills.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

4x-12<0 AND 1/(4-x)<0
4x-12<0 AND 4-x>0
That is an error.

( 1/(4-x) < 0 ) =/= ( 4-x > 0 )

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Incorrect. 4-x is the multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) of 1/(4-x), just as 3 is the reciprocal of 1/3. When multiplied together, they give 1. When applying the multiplicative or additive inverse to both sides of an inequality, it reverses the sign.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I posit the following:
1/(4-5) < 0 Correct
4-5 > 0 Incorrect

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hmm . . . I hope you're onto something, because then everything would work out quite nicely. I'll be thinking about it.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Monukai posted the solution before I got here. It is all correct.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I just took a close look at it, and he does indeed have a correct solution. Bravo! That said, if I could figure out exactly where I've gone wrong, I feel like I'm on the verge of having a more elegant solution (in my opinion, of course; in mathematics, as in everything else, when it comes to aesthetics, your mileage may vary).

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Once you're at the (4x-12)(1/(4-x))<0, you can write that as a fraction: (4x-12)/(4-x)<0. In order for a fraction to be negative, one of the following must be true: (top > 0 and bottom < 0) or (top < 0 and bottom > 0). So (4x-12 > 0 and 4-x < 0) or (4x-12 < 0 and 4-x > 0). If you solve those, you get (x < 3 and x < 4) or (x > 3 and x > 4). You can then simplify this to (x < 3) or (x > 4).

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

FUCK ME! I DIVIDED BY ZERO!

1/(4-x)<0

1/(1/(4-x))>1/0 <---NO

Correct solution will be edited into my original post shortly.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you very much for this thread. It makes me appreciate not having to study anything that involves math anymore so. much. more.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So much fail in this thread, it hurts my brain.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

  1. www.wolframalpha.com
  2. enter the problem
  3. ???
  4. bacon. or possibly the solution
12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

wolfram alpha sucks ass now. Ever since they've introduced the pro features, it's no longer as useful as it was, especially when you wan them to show you the steps to the solution....unless you buy their "pro" subscription.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

He wasn't asking for the solution, he was asking for the steps to reach the solution. He posted the solution in the OP.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm a bit stupid too, you're not alone anymore!

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh!!!!
I broke my neck!

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

fixed

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Made no sense to me whatever, I'm actually interested in the answer now ;) Anyone dumb it down?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

When he turns "4x - 12" into "4 . (x - 3)" he's using the simplification method in order to make achieving the result an easier task. Everything else on the paper is just the way he gave the answer.

Click here for more info on basic algebra simplification methods.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Simplified and
Other method
Hope it helps.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Okay: both sides: *(4-x) you have 2 cases: a) (4-x)<0 and b) (4-x)>0. If it's 0, then division through zero => x!=0. If its negative (x>4) the "<" changes to ">". You get x>12-3x. Both sides +3x => 4x>12. This is true for all x>3, but you have to match x>4, so x>4 is one solution. If (4-x) was positive (x<4) you get x<12-3x. both sides +3x => 4x<12 this is true for all x<3.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You pretty good translated my solution into english words. Thanks

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

sorry, i made it myself, didn't saw yours

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i didn't want to say, that you use my solution.
But my english not so good. i post image few hours before, but not able to explain it very clear. Your explanation is very good.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks, therefore I am studying that crap ^^

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh, let me play, too! :D
You obviously can't divide by 0, so 4 is totally out of the picture. The two possible cases are now x > 4 and x < 4. Let's see what happens if we assume x to be larger than 4.

If x > 4, obviously x/(4-x) is negative. Now we multiply the whole thing with (4-x) to remove the denominator. Bur remember that 4-x is negative! We have to invert the inequality sign so we get x(4-x)/(4-x) > 3(4-x).
Divide 4-x by 4-x and you are left with x > 12-3x. Add 3x:
4x > 12
Now divide by 4 and you have your solution: x > 3.
Now remember that we said that this should be the calculation for every x that is bigger than 4. Now we know that every x that is greater than 4 solves as long as it also bigger than 3. That means our solution for this case is "Every x that is simultaneously bigger than 3 and bigger than 4".
I don't think I need to explain that every x that i bigger than 4 is always bigger than 3 and that an x between 3 and 4 is NEVER bigger than 4. So we disregard the x > 3 and the final answer for this one case is x > 4.

You said you solved the other case yourself, so that all fine and dandy. I tried to stay away from mathematical language in the hopes of being more accessible ;)

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I wish the math problems I face now were this simple...

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yep; that's what happens when you go into engineering. Hell, I wish the math I did was as simple as AP calculus was...

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks guys. I'll be sure to come here if I have any more math questions in the coming years.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 12 years ago by Slinden.