Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

# FP2 Inequalities Help!!!!😩 watch

1. I don't understand why Meathod 1 is giving me the incorrect answer. It should technically give me the same answer as meathod 2??
2. you really need to show us the question
3. (Original post by FHL123)
ITs q18
4. i would start by plotting both curves on a graphics calculator to see roughly what is going on.
5. (Original post by the bear)
i would start by plotting both curves on a graphics calculator to see roughly what is going on.
Drawing the curves doesn't help
6. (Original post by FHL123)
I don't understand why Meathod 1 is giving me the incorrect answer. It should technically give me the same answer as meathod 2??
Actually both methods give the same answers. For method one, notice that you have and we know that due to the shape of the parabola and the fact that the discriminant is less than 0. So in order for our overall expression to be greater than zero, we must have whereas you marked that it must be greater than 0 for some reason.

Also in both methods you get the inequality as you can see.
7. (Original post by FHL123)
Drawing the curves doesn't help
It doesn't help but I don't understand why the other meathod doesn't work
8. Could you take a look at this question please?
9. (Original post by FHL123)
It doesn't help but I don't understand why the other meathod doesn't work
(Original post by FHL123)
Could you take a look at this question please?
I have literally just pointed out where you went wrong...
10. (Original post by RDKGames)
Actually both methods give the same answers. For method one, notice that you have and we know that due to the shape of the parabola and the fact that the discriminant is less than 0. So in order for our overall expression to be greater than zero, we must have whereas you marked that it must be greater than 0 for some reason.

Also in both methods you get the inequality as you can see.
Thank you- genius !!!
11. (Original post by RDKGames)
I have literally just pointed out where you went wrong...
Apologies- I saw that after I sent that post!
12. but if you say that the (2x-2-2x^2) is less than zero, for method two doesn't (3x-2)(2x+1) have to be greater than zero, so the overall expression remains negative, as a positive and a negative is a negative?
13. (Original post by FHL123)
but if you say that the (2x-2-2x^2) is less than zero, for method two doesn't (3x-2)(2x+1) have to be greater than zero, so the overall expression remains negative, as a positive and a negative is a negative?
For method two you multiplied both sides by -1 so the inequality sign changes and your quadratic becomes positive for all as a result of distributing the -1 into it. So to have your overall expression to be negative, you need to multiply something positive (the quadratic) by something negative (the product of 2 linear factors)
14. (Original post by RDKGames)
For method two you multiplied both sides by -1 so the inequality sign changes and your quadratic becomes positive for all as a result of distributing the -1 into it. So to have your overall expression to be negative, you need to multiply something positive (the quadratic) by something negative (the product of 2 linear factors)
For method two i just rearranged it so the whole expression was less than zero by taking the LHS away from the RHS- I didn'f multiply the expression by -1?
15. (Original post by FHL123)
For method two i just rearranged it so the whole expression was less than zero by taking the LHS away from the RHS- I didn'f multiply the expression by -1?
16. (Original post by FHL123)
For method two i just rearranged it so the whole expression was less than zero by taking the LHS away from the RHS- I didn'f multiply the expression by -1?
Well that's what essentially happened.

In essence, if I have then I can multiply both sides by -1 to get which would be the same as moving onto the RHS that gives you . Similar thing happening here with your approach.
17. (Original post by RDKGames)
Well that's what essentially happened.

In essence, if I have then I can multiply both sides by -1 to get which would be the same as moving onto the RHS that gives you . Similar thing happening here with your approach.
Why is (2x^2 - 2x +2) greater than zero if the discriminant is less than zero?
18. (Original post by FHL123)
Why is (2x^2 - 2x +2) greater than zero if the discriminant is less than zero?
Discriminant being less 0 doesn't denote whether a quadratic is strictly positive or negative. It simply says that it doesn't cross the x-axis.

Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta

### Related university courses

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: February 1, 2017
Today on TSR

### Summer Bucket List is Back!

Start yours and you could win Â£150!

Poll
Useful resources

## Make your revision easier

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.