# Problems Involving Quadratic Inequalities

Watch
Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
How do I solve Question 7 Exercise 3d?
0
1 year ago
#2
(Original post by JudaicImposter)
How do I solve Question 7 Exercise 3d?
The leading coefficient must be strictly +ve first of all, so here it is hence .

And so now that our quadratic is of U shape, we also require that this quadratic either has one real root, or none. Or in other words, it has no two distinct roots (otherwise there is a region between the roots where the quadratic dips into -ve values of y which is not what we want). This is to make sure that our quadratic is entirely above (or touching) the x-axis. So use this to determine the stricter condition for .
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by RDKGames)
The leading coefficient must be strictly +ve first of all, so here it is hence .

And so now that our quadratic is of U shape, we also require that this quadratic either has one real root, or none. Or in other words, it has no two distinct roots (otherwise there is a region between the roots where the quadratic dips into -ve values of y which is not what we want). This is to make sure that our quadratic is entirely above (or touching) the x-axis. So use this to determine the stricter condition for .
I still can't solve it
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by RDKGames)
The leading coefficient must be strictly +ve first of all, so here it is hence .

And so now that our quadratic is of U shape, we also require that this quadratic either has one real root, or none. Or in other words, it has no two distinct roots (otherwise there is a region between the roots where the quadratic dips into -ve values of y which is not what we want). This is to make sure that our quadratic is entirely above (or touching) the x-axis. So use this to determine the stricter condition for .
The function has a minimum value of -36/(2+k) + (2k+1) now what do i do?
0
1 year ago
#5
(Original post by JudaicImposter)
The function has a minimum value of -36/(2+k) + (2k+1) now what do i do?
Would be simpler to just set the discriminant .

Post your working if you get stuck.
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by RDKGames)
The leading coefficient must be strictly +ve first of all, so here it is hence .

And so now that our quadratic is of U shape, we also require that this quadratic either has one real root, or none. Or in other words, it has no two distinct roots (otherwise there is a region between the roots where the quadratic dips into -ve values of y which is not what we want). This is to make sure that our quadratic is entirely above (or touching) the x-axis. So use this to determine the stricter condition for .
How do I solve Question 9?
0
1 year ago
#7
(Original post by JudaicImposter)
How do I solve Question 9?
is a root. So plug that in and solve the equation for first.
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by RDKGames)
The leading coefficient must be strictly +ve first of all, so here it is hence .

And so now that our quadratic is of U shape, we also require that this quadratic either has one real root, or none. Or in other words, it has no two distinct roots (otherwise there is a region between the roots where the quadratic dips into -ve values of y which is not what we want). This is to make sure that our quadratic is entirely above (or touching) the x-axis. So use this to determine the stricter condition for .
For Question 14b I've got -2x^2 -8x +10 for the first quadratic function, how do I find the second one?
0
1 year ago
#9
(Original post by JudaicImposter)
For Question 14b I've got -2x^2 +8x +10 for the first quadratic function, how do I find the second one?
I can't see Q14.
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by RDKGames)
I can't see Q14.
I will scan the page and upload it...
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by RDKGames)
I can't see Q14.
Another scan
0
1 year ago
#12
(Original post by JudaicImposter)
For Question 14b I've got -2x^2 +8x +10 for the first quadratic function, how do I find the second one?
That's not right, you might want to check the sign of that .

OK so we can begin by saying we are seeking a quadratic function such that:

(i.e. x=1 is a root)

(i.e. takes the value of 10 when x=0) hence , and the first equation implies .

(i.e. extremal value of 18)

(we make this extremal value to be a maximum)

So, from the third equation we get that which we can sub into .

This clearly gives two values of , hence you can anticipate two quadratics, and indeed both values give us -ve as required since .
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by RDKGames)
That's not right, you might want to check the sign of that .

OK so we can begin by saying we are seeking a quadratic function such that:

(i.e. x=1 is a root)

(i.e. takes the value of 10 when x=0) hence , and the first equation implies .

(i.e. extremal value of 18)

(we make this extremal value to be a maximum)

So, from the third equation we get that which we can sub into .

This clearly gives two values of , hence you can anticipate two quadratics, and indeed both values give us -ve as required since .
I've now corrected the sign of 8x
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by RDKGames)
The leading coefficient must be strictly +ve first of all, so here it is hence .

And so now that our quadratic is of U shape, we also require that this quadratic either has one real root, or none. Or in other words, it has no two distinct roots (otherwise there is a region between the roots where the quadratic dips into -ve values of y which is not what we want). This is to make sure that our quadratic is entirely above (or touching) the x-axis. So use this to determine the stricter condition for .
I'm now stuck on Question 17b. Please provide help.
0
1 year ago
#15
(Original post by JudaicImposter)
I'm now stuck on Question 17b. Please provide help.
You are seeking such that

Hence

If the LHS is less than or equal to zero, then that means it has either a single root, or no roots. So find the values of using that.
Also some simple analysis reveals that the coeff of is and you want this to be <0 hence is necessary.
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by RDKGames)
You are seeking such that

Hence

If the LHS is less than or equal to zero, then that means it has either a single root, or no roots. So find the values of using that.
Also some simple analysis reveals that the coeff of is and you want this to be <0 hence is necessary.
I've only got k is less or equal to 0 as the answer. Is that correct? I expanded the two quadratics, determined that the graph has a maximum at x equal to 0 , the inequality is true for all real x so i substituted an arbitrary small value for x, specifically the value of 2, got an inequality involving only a multiple of k on the left hand side and less than or equal to 0 on the right. It doesn't look like I've completely finished the answer.
Edit: I think I've got it now; I had forgotten the -12.5 on the left hand side
Second Edit: The final answer is now k is less than or equal to (25/32). Is that correct?
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by RDKGames)
You are seeking such that

Hence

If the LHS is less than or equal to zero, then that means it has either a single root, or no roots. So find the values of using that.
Also some simple analysis reveals that the coeff of is and you want this to be <0 hence is necessary.
Is k is less than or equal to (25/32) correct?
0
1 year ago
#18
(Original post by JudaicImposter)
Is k is less than or equal to (25/32) correct?
No. Max value of the function with that value of is 44 which exceeds the 12.5 limit.
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by RDKGames)
No. Max value of the function with that value of is 44 which exceeds the 12.5 limit.
I've given up. Please post the solution for the whole question including for the two graphs at the end. Thanks.
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by RDKGames)
You are seeking such that

Hence

If the LHS is less than or equal to zero, then that means it has either a single root, or no roots. So find the values of using that.
Also some simple analysis reveals that the coeff of is and you want this to be <0 hence is necessary.
Couldn't an alternative be that the left hand side of the second equation means there are two real roots and the fact that it is an inequality means that the equation dips below the x axis for a given range of x values?
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

Yes (258)
33.81%
No (505)
66.19%