Does x &#x2212;<!-- − --> 2 </mrow> 3 x &#x221

Kapalci 2022-06-26 Answered
Does x 2 3 x 6 really equal 1 3 ?
In my maths lesson today we were simplifying fractions by factorising. One question was something like this: x 2 3 x 6 , which I simplified as x 2 3 x 6 = x 2 3 ( x 2 ) = 1 3 . It got me wondering however, whether these expressions are really equal, specifically in the case x = 2, where the former expression is undefined but the latter takes the value 1 3
Since the expressions only differ at a single point are they for all intents and purposes equal, or are they theoretically different? If I wanted to be entirely correct would I have to write x 2 3 x 6 = 1 3 where x 2?
My maths teacher explained that at x = 2 the expression evaluates to 0 3 × 0 and the zeros effectively cancel out. I wasn't altogether satisfied with this explanation because as far as I know 0 0 is undefined.
Thanks in advance!
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (2)

drumette824ed
Answered 2022-06-27 Author has 19 answers
I think it may help to frame it as this:
One one hand, x 2 3 x 6 is a function that is defined on R except at x = 2, and at every point it is defined it is equal to 1 3
On the other hand, 1 3 can be seen as a function that must take in ANY input and give you 1 3 back. In particular, the domain restriction at x = 2 prevents x 2 3 x 6 to be the same thing as 1 3
Thus, It would not be correct to simplify x 2 3 x 6 to 1 3 unless we are working in a domain where x 2

We have step-by-step solutions for your answer!

gvaldytist
Answered 2022-06-28 Author has 12 answers
Yes... and no.
Math notation is ambiguous; it is impractical to fully spell out all of the fine details of what one means. We've had centuries of wisdom in developing notations where the ambiguities usually don't matter, but they often do in the fine detail.
There are a few different things one might mean by x 2 3 x 6 ; the most significant disagreement between the alternatives is the status of "evaluation at x = 2".
The most basic interpretation is that x 2 3 x 6 is a recipe for performing a sequence of arithmetic operations upon a given input; in this interpretation, evaluation at x = 2 is, in fact, undefined.
Many other interpretations can be described as "take the continuous extension": roughly speaking, you take the graph of the function and fill in all of the holes; here you would add in ( 2 , 1 / 3 ). Also, if you were using the extended real numbers you would add in ( + , 1 / 3 ) and ( , 1 / 3 ), so that evaluation at ± is defined. (similarly if you were using the projective real numbers)
Your teachers description is nonsense when taken literally; however, the likely intention is that he is using " 0" as a stand-in for some sort of 'witness' of vanishing; e.g. we factor out ( x 2 ) from both the numerator and denominator to get
x 2 3 x 6 = 1 3 x 2 x 2 = 1 3 1
If we use one of these "continuous extension" interpretations, the witnesses do 'cancel' to leave behind 1 / 3

We have step-by-step solutions for your answer!

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-09-25
Does ( x + 1 ) log ( x + 1 ) 2 x log x + ( x 1 ) log ( x 1 ) 1 x hold for x 1?
While calculating some integrals I happened to face the following estimate:
m m + 1 n n + 1 d y d x x + y 1 m + n + 1 .
After some tedious calculations, I figured that this estimate follows from the inequality
( x + 1 ) log ( x + 1 ) 2 x log x + ( x 1 ) log ( x 1 ) 1 x for  x > 1.
(If we interpret 0 log 0 as lim ϵ 0 ϵ log ϵ = 0, then the inequality also holds for x = 1.)
But how do we prove this inequality?
What I have tried: Let f ( x ) = x log x ( x 1 ) log ( x 1 ) for x > 1. Then the RHS equals f ( x + 1 ) f ( x ) so by the Mean Value Theorem there exist some ξ between x and x + 1 such that
f ( x + 1 ) f ( x ) = f ( ξ ) = log ( 1 + 1 ξ 1 ) ,
and it suffices to show that log ( 1 + 1 x ) 1 x ... which is unfortunately not valid !
I think some clever use of the MVT can solve this problem, but I don't see how I should proceed. Please enlighten me.
asked 2022-08-03
Six less than the quotient of a number and seven
asked 2022-04-10
Comparison of two values
I have to figure out the relation between the quantity ( 0.9 / 1.1 ) 2 + ( 1.1 / 0.9 ) 2 and 2. How can i do this without explicitly calculating the first value, by using some laws of exponents?
asked 2022-05-09
Reduce 3/9*13/12+12*8.
asked 2021-12-18
How do you convert 3 1/8 into a decimal and percent?
asked 2022-06-15
Proof of an inequality involving different exponents
I was asked the following interesting question but I can not come up with a proof.
Let a , b , c be positive real numbers. Prove that
( ) a 3 b 3 + c 3 + b 3 a 3 + c 3 + c 3 a 3 + b 3 a 2 b 2 + c 2 + b 2 a 2 + c 2 + c 2 a 2 + b 2
One way to prove ( ) may be to consider the following function
f ( x ) = a x b x + c x + b x a x + c x + c x a x + b x
and prove that f ( x ) is a non-decreasing function on [ 2 , 3 ]. When we take its derivative, the formula looks quite tedious and we just can not continue on. So is there any better solution?
asked 2022-08-28
Verify Lagrange's Formula
If a and b are integers, (where b is not 0 or 1), verify Lagrange's Formula:
a + 1 b = ( a 1 ) + 1 1 + 1 b 1

New questions