Tadams052012
New member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8
Hi there,
As those of you who kindly answered my previous posts will know, I'm self studying algebra from a book called 'Teach yourself algebra: a complete introduction.' Now, all of my previous posts have been concerning specific problems, this one however, is a bit more general. I've reached the section on 'linear inequalities' and am having few difficulties in understanding the material, on one little detail however, my book is being somewhat ambiguous.
For the simultaneous inequalities that I'm required to solve in the current exercise it is clearly stated 'Find the positive values of X which satisfy both the inequalities.'
Now the format of the book is such that before making you solve any specific kind of problem yourself you are always given a 'worked example.'
Now my problem is that in the 'worked example' for this kind of problem 0 is not included as a positive value. The answer is given 0<X<3. Unfortunately when I go on to solve the first of these problems in the following exercise, in the 'answers' section of the book 0 is included as a positive value. I am certain that I've solved the two simultaneous inequalities correctly and they are (solved) X<8 and X<5. Following the methodology of the 'worked example' therefore, I've given my answer as 0<X<5. Unfortunately when I flip to the 'answers' section of my book, the correct answer provided suggests that I should have included 0 as a positive value: 0<X<5.
Is is the book trying to tell me that both ways are correct and that 0 can be either considered as positive or not included at all? Or does the book contain an error here? In short, is 0 to be considered as a positive value or not in the solution of this kind of inequality problem?
My Google searches have done little to clarify the situation. They tell me that in the English speaking world 0 is considered as neither positive nor negative, but that in the minds of the French 0 can be either positive or negative.
Any clarification on this matter would be much appreciated.
Many thanks,
Tom.
As those of you who kindly answered my previous posts will know, I'm self studying algebra from a book called 'Teach yourself algebra: a complete introduction.' Now, all of my previous posts have been concerning specific problems, this one however, is a bit more general. I've reached the section on 'linear inequalities' and am having few difficulties in understanding the material, on one little detail however, my book is being somewhat ambiguous.
For the simultaneous inequalities that I'm required to solve in the current exercise it is clearly stated 'Find the positive values of X which satisfy both the inequalities.'
Now the format of the book is such that before making you solve any specific kind of problem yourself you are always given a 'worked example.'
Now my problem is that in the 'worked example' for this kind of problem 0 is not included as a positive value. The answer is given 0<X<3. Unfortunately when I go on to solve the first of these problems in the following exercise, in the 'answers' section of the book 0 is included as a positive value. I am certain that I've solved the two simultaneous inequalities correctly and they are (solved) X<8 and X<5. Following the methodology of the 'worked example' therefore, I've given my answer as 0<X<5. Unfortunately when I flip to the 'answers' section of my book, the correct answer provided suggests that I should have included 0 as a positive value: 0<X<5.
Is is the book trying to tell me that both ways are correct and that 0 can be either considered as positive or not included at all? Or does the book contain an error here? In short, is 0 to be considered as a positive value or not in the solution of this kind of inequality problem?
My Google searches have done little to clarify the situation. They tell me that in the English speaking world 0 is considered as neither positive nor negative, but that in the minds of the French 0 can be either positive or negative.
Any clarification on this matter would be much appreciated.
Many thanks,
Tom.
Last edited: