2 = ∣ x − 2 ∣ + ∣ x − 4 ∣
Find the solution set of the above equation.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Brilliant explanation! Upvoted! The problem becomes easier if we interpret it geometrically rather than algebraically.
As an addition to this wonderful solution, you can also give a more general result:
For real solutions x , we have,
∀ a , b ∈ R , ∣ x − a ∣ + ∣ x − b ∣ = ∣ a − b ∣ ⟹ x ∈ [ a , b ]
Edit: Now that I notice, an analogous result holds in the field of complex numbers C as well. Suppose a , b , x ∈ C satisfies the equation. Then, this would mean that a , b , x forms a triangle with the sum of side lengths a x and b x equaling the length of the base a b which can happen only when the triangle is degenerate (see triangle inequality ), ie, x lies on the line segment between a and b , ie, x ∈ L [ a , b ] : = { λ a + ( 1 − λ ) b ∣ λ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] }
Log in to reply
Thank you for this addition!
How will this relation |x-a| + |x-b| = |a-b| help in solving above equation ??? As by putting a=4 and b=2 in the above relation we get only 2. How do we get 4 ?? and all the real values between 2 and 4 ??
Log in to reply
I think you're confusing [ 2 , 4 ] with the set { 2 , 4 } of 2 elements, just 2 and 4; The notation [ a , b ] means the closed interval from a to b which is defined as the reals between 2 and 4 (inclusive, ie, including the endpoints 2 and 4). See my reply to Josh Smith's comment below.
Question: What about 3? Doesn't 3 work as well? |3-2|=1, and |3-4|=|-1|=1, and 1+1=2. Why isn't this an answer as well? Somebody please explain!
Log in to reply
Read Rishabh Tripathi's comment below. 3 works too. To be precise, every value between 2 and 4 (inclusive) works. The notation [ a , b ] is a set theoretic notation used to denote the interval containing all reals between a and b inclusive ( a , b ∈ R ) . Here's the precise mathematical definition:
∀ a , b ∈ R , [ a , b ] = { x ∣ x ∈ R ∧ a ≤ x ≤ b }
Any value who come out into these two line always in positive bro
Creative approach dude... I really loved it..
I'm so confused, lol, but I love to learn new things. But I don't understand why × doesn't equal 4, how does × equal two number values?
Log in to reply
x can be equal to 4
x ∈ [ 2 , 4 ]
This means x can have any value between 2 and 4 including 2 and 4.
If you plug in 2 and 4, you get 0 and 0. 0 + 0 does not equal 2. This answer is flawed. The answer should be 0 and 4.
There's a simpler approach to this.
Hint 1 : What is the alternative interpretation for ∣ x − 2 ∣ ?
Hint 2 : At what point(s) on the number line is the distance between a point, let's call it x = x 0 to the point x = 2 and to the point x = 4 gives a total distance of 2?
Hint 3 : What is the answer to this very problem itself (that you have posted a solution to)?
Can you solve this equation using graph?? It would be easy using graph
The problem gave us this equation:
2 = |x - 2| + |x - 4|
Remember the triangle inequality theorem applied to absolute values:
|x + y| ≤ |x| + |y|
If we use this theorem to the RHS of the equation we get this:
|(x - 2) + (x - 4)| ≤ |x - 2| + |x - 4|
And by replacing the RHS by the LHS from the first equation we get:
|(x - 2) + (x - 4)| ≤ 2
|2x - 6| ≤ 2
Then if we use the following property of inequalities that involve absolute value:
|x| ≤ c ⇔ c ≤ x ≤ c
We have:
-2 ≤ 2x - 6 ≤ 2
4 ≤ 2x ≤ 8
2 ≤ x ≤ 4
Which gives us the interval [2,4] for x that satisfy the problem equation.
by drawing graph of function... easily ans is [2,4] . it takes 2-3 seconds to solve it if you know to draw this function's graph..
If x ≤ 4 then 2 = ∣ x − 2 ∣ + ∣ x − 4 ∣ = x − 2 + x − 4 = 2 x − 6 ⟹ 2 = 2 x − 6 ⟹ 2 x − 8 = 0
2 x − 8 = 0 ⟹ x = − 2 − 8 = 4
If 2 ≤ x ≤ 4 then 2 = ∣ x − 2 ∣ + ∣ x − 4 ∣ = x − 2 + 4 − x = 2 so we canceled out.
If x ≤ 2 then 2 = ∣ x − 2 ∣ + ∣ x − 4 ∣ = 2 − x + 4 − x = 6 − 2 x ⟹ 2 = 6 − 2 x ⟹ 2 x − 4 = 0
2 x − 4 = 0 ⟹ x = − 2 − 4 = 2
So the answer is 2 , 4
You mean, if x>=4. Right?
Put value x=0, all but two solutions fall away.
That leaves with either "no solution" or [2,4].
Attempt [2,4], success. :P
Put x = 7 To get first point .Put x = 14 to get 2nd point then use sqrt ( ( Y2-Y1) ^2 + ( x2-x1)^2 )
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let's say that we have two numbers, A and B , that are drawn on a number line. What is the distance between them? Or in other words, how far are they from each other?
Let's take a look at an example, where A = 3 and B = 7 .
We could count. By doing this, we get the answer 4 . But when we have very large numbers, such as A = 1 2 3 8 9 3 2 9 2 and B = 5 , then drawing them on a number line and counting the distance between them becomes easily tiresome. We might observe the following: Number B has traveled 7 numbers, where number A has traveled 3 numbers. How many numbers more must number A travel in order to reach number B ? That's Basic Math! Number A must travel 7 − 3 = 4 numbers more until it reaches number B . But, the amount of numbers that number A had to travel until it reached number B is also the distance between the two numbers.
What can we conclude from this? The distance d between two numbers, A and B , is the same as the difference between our two numbers: d = B − A .
Right? No, not exactly. We knew in our calculation that number B was further away than number A . So we calculated d = B − A and not d = A − B which would imply that number A is further away than number B . As a general formula we could say then:
If number B is further away than number A , then the distance d between these two numbers is d = B − A .
But what if we actually calculated A − B instead of B − A ? Then our answer would be A − B = 3 − 7 = ( − 4 ) . This means number B has to travel − 4 numbers ( 4 numbers backwards) until it reached number A .
This also somehow shows the distance between the two numbers. What we don't like about it, is the minus sign. Wouldn't it be dreamy if we had something that gives us the positive version of every number we gave it? We indeed have something like that, the so-called absolute value (function) of a number x , written as a b s ( x ) or ∣ x ∣ .
So, we can say that the distance d between two numbers A and B is d = ∣ A − B ∣ , without worrying about which of these numbers is further away.
You can actually prove that A − B = − ( B − A ) .
So what does an equation like the following mean? 3 = ∣ x − 2 ∣ ∣ x − 2 ∣ is the distance between x and 2 . So, 3 = ∣ x − 2 ∣ means that we want to know all values of x , such that the distance between x and 2 is exactly 3 . And only the numbers x = 5 and x = ( − 1 ) have the distance 3 from the number 2 .
In a similar way, we get for 2 = ∣ x ∣ = ∣ x − 0 ∣ that only the numbers x = 2 and x = ( − 2 ) have the distance 2 from the number 0 .
So, the actually problem was to solve the following equation
2 = ∣ x − 2 ∣ + ∣ x − 4 ∣
∣ x − 2 ∣ is the distance between 2 and x .
∣ x − 4 ∣ is the distance between 4 and x .
Their sum has to be 2 .
Firstly, let's think about what the distance between 2 and 4 is. It's obviously d = ∣ 4 − 2 ∣ = 2 . And now, let's draw a number C on the the number line between 2 and 4 .
The black line you see in the picture, is the distance between number C and 2 .
The red line you see in the picture, is the distance between number C and 4 .
Wait a second. As we just just saw, the distance between 2 and 4 is 2 , so the "red line + black line" is always 2 as well! It doesn't matter how big the red line and black line are each, but their sum is always 2 .
With this we have found numbers that satisfy the condition
2 = ∣ x − 2 ∣ + ∣ x − 4 ∣ ,
i.e. numbers whose distance to 2 and distance to 4 together is exactly 2 . All numbers that are between 2 and 4 (inclusive)!
One final thought may be, if there are more numbers with this property. If we put our Number C before 2 , then distance between all numbers C that are before 2 and the number 4 will be greater than 2 , but never exactly 2 . And if ∣ x − 4 ∣ is already greater than 2 , then the expression ∣ x − 2 ∣ + ∣ x − 4 ∣ will also always be greater than 2 , because ∣ x − 2 ∣ is always 0 or positive (non-negative).
Similar, if we put our number C after 4 , then the distance between C and 2 will always be greater than 2 .
Think about the geometrically interpretation about the following inequalities. Which values of x satisfy them and what is created when they are drawn on a number line?
x < ∣ 1 ∣ x < ∣ 0 ∣ x < ∣ a ∣ ∣ x ∣ < 5 ∣ x ∣ > 5 ∣ x ∣ < a ∣ x − 3 ∣ < 4 ∣ x − 3 ∣ > 4 ∣ x − 2 ∣ < a ∣ x − a ∣ < ϵ ∣ x − a ∣ > ϵ