Modulus Inequalities Practice Questions
Uploaded by
Zoha Shabbir ,Modulus Inequalities Practice Questions
Uploaded by
Zoha Shabbir ,Common questions
Powered by AITo solve |2x + 1| < |x|, consider the nature of the modulus function. First, consider two cases for x: Case 1 (x >= 0): 2x + 1 < x, leading to x < -1. However, in the non-negative region x < -1 is invalid, so no solutions here. Case 2 (x < 0): Apply negative aspect, -2x - 1 < -x; rearranging gives -x < 1. Thus x > -1. Cross-check the overlap with x < 0: the solution is -1 < x < 0. Thus, x is strictly between -1 and 0 .
To solve 2x > |x − 1|, consider the two scenarios based on the definition of modulus: 1) x - 1 >= 0, leading to x >= 1: The inequality becomes 2x > x - 1, thus x > -1, which is always true where x >= 1. 2) x - 1 < 0, leading to x < 1: The inequality transforms to 2x > -(x - 1) or 2x > -x + 1, resulting in 3x > 1, thus x > 1/3. The solution is x > 1 in both cases .
Begin solving the inequality x − 2 > 2x − 3 by first rearranging terms to group x terms on one side: x - 2x > -3 + 2, giving -x > -1. Dividing through by -1 (remembering to reverse inequality sign), x < 1 results as solution .
To solve |x| < |5 + 2x|, analyze separately based on x's sign. For x >= 0, it simplifies to two potential inequalities, x < -(5 + 2x) and x < 5 + 2x. The former is invalid in non-negative x; the latter gives x < 5/3. For x < 0, convert and solve -x < |5 + 2x| similarly, depending on further sub-case dissecting, yielding -x < -5 - 2x leading to x > -5. Validate within valid intervals x < 5/3 ensures coverage of constraints, resulting in -5 < x < 5/3 .
To solve |x + 3a| > 2|x − 2a|, analyze by defining cases based on sign changes around critical points like x = -3a and x = 2a. For x >= 2a, remove moduli directly leading to x + 3a > 2x - 4a. Hence, x < 7a. For -3a <= x < 2a, negate certain forms to handle absolute values: x + 3a > -2x + 4a, resulting in 3x > a, thus, x > a/3. Lastly, for x < -3a, adjust by x + 3a > -2x + 4a solving to 3x > a. Valid solutions account for a and interval feasibility; results include non-overlapping values .
For 2|x −3| > |3x + 1|, consider possible ranges: 1) Separate into conditions where each absolute expression changes sign (critical points at x = 3 and x = -1/3). Solve within each range by considering both scenarios of absolute signs for inequality setup, resulting typically in direct expansion or simultaneous inequalities. Analyze and eliminate physically impossible solutions when overlapping conditions occur. Each valid range intersection provides a distinct subset of solutions—often non-continuous .
To solve 4x −1 = x −3, first rearrange terms to isolate x by subtraction: 4x - x = -3 + 1. This simplifies to 3x = -2. Dividing both sides by 3 results in x = -2/3. This direct algebraic manipulation derives a straightforward expression and solution .
Solving |x − 2| > 3|2x + 1| involves examining intervals defined by critical points of modulus expressions. Separate into cases where x - 2 and 2x + 1 change signs. This leads to solving within regions: 1) x < -1/2, 2) -1/2 <= x < 2, and 3) x >= 2. For each region, remove modulus signs accordingly, resulting in separate linear inequalities. Solution combinations arise from case overlaps after validation, which yield specific intervals for x. Careful attention to inequality boundaries and feasibility in each region determines final x values .
To solve 2 −3x < |x − 3|, consider two regions for x relative to critical point 3. If x >= 3: Transform 2 - 3x < x - 3 into inequality 5 < 4x, giving x > 5/4. Check against x >= 3 constraint. For x < 3: Re-orient using 2 - 3x < -x + 3 into 2 < 2x + 3, resulting in x > -1/2. Visual overlap of these gives valid solutions x in (5/4, 3), remembering x cannot be exactly 3 in any modulus-free case .
To solve 3|x −1| < |2x + 1|, distinct steps involve first identifying critical points x = 1 and x = -1/2, segmenting inequality into defined regions. For each (-∞, -1/2), [-1/2, 1), and [1, ∞), resolve without modulus by assuming expected signs inside each interval, producing direct linear comparisons. Overlapping results across valid intervals combine as total solution; eject infeasibility due non-overlapping or contradiction .