Inequalities

A math test asks you to solve x=5x = 5 and you write down one number. A math test asks you to solve 2x+3>52x + 3 > 5 and one number is not enough — you need to describe an entire range of numbers that make the statement true. That is the shift this chapter makes: from equations, which pin down a single value, to inequalities, which describe a set of values using the symbols <<, >>, ≤\le and ≥\ge in place of ==. This article builds the vocabulary and the three algebraic rules that every later topic in the chapter — solving linear inequalities, graphing them on a number line, and handling systems of two inequalities — depends on. The single most exam-costly idea here is what happens when you multiply or divide both sides of an inequality by a negative number: the inequality sign must flip. Get comfortable with why that happens and you avoid the most common mistake in the entire Linear Inequalities chapter.

The core insight

An inequality compares two expressions with <,>,≤,≥<,>,\le,\ge instead of ==, describing a whole interval of solutions rather than one value, and its algebra obeys the same addition/subtraction rules as equations except that multiplying or dividing by a negative number reverses the inequality sign.

The core idea

The four symbols. For real numbers aa and bb, a<ba<b means aa is strictly less than bb, a>ba>b means aa is strictly greater than bb, while a≤ba \le b and a≥ba \ge b allow equality as well as the strict case. The strict symbols (<,><,>) exclude the boundary value; the slack symbols (≤,≥\le,\ge) include it — a distinction that matters the moment you mark an endpoint on a number line or write an interval.

Linear inequality in one variable. This chapter's central object has the form

ax+b<c,ax+b≤c,ax+b>c,orax+b≥cax + b < c, \quad ax+b \le c, \quad ax+b>c, \quad \text{or} \quad ax+b\ge c

where: xx is the unknown, and a,b,ca,b,c are real constants with a≠0a \neq 0. Its solution set is every value of xx that makes the statement true. Unlike ax+b=cax+b=c, which usually has exactly one root, a linear inequality typically has infinitely many solutions, filling an entire stretch of the real line.

From inequality to interval. The solution set {x∈R:a<x<b}\{x \in \mathbb{R} : a < x < b\} is written as the open interval (a,b)(a,b); the parentheses signal that aa and bb themselves are excluded. The set {x∈R:a≤x≤b}\{x \in \mathbb{R}: a \le x \le b\} is the closed interval [a,b][a,b], and a mixed case like {x∈R:a<x≤b}\{x \in \mathbb{R}: a < x \le b\} is the half-open interval (a,b](a,b]. A compact expression such as a<x<ba < x < b is really two conditions joined into one line — x>ax>a and x<bx<b simultaneously — and this double inequality notation reappears constantly once systems of inequalities enter the picture.

Figure
A number line showing an open circle at 1 and shading to the right to represent the solution set x greater than 1
Solution set of 2x plus 3 greater than 5, that is x greater than 1 -1 0 1 2 open circle: 1 is not included

Three rules governing inequalities

Rule 1 — shifting. Adding or subtracting the same number on both sides preserves the inequality: if a<ba<b, then a+k<b+ka+k<b+k and a−k<b−ka-k<b-k for any real kk.

Rule 2 — scaling by a positive number. Multiplying or dividing both sides by the same positive number preserves the inequality: if a<ba<b and k>0k>0, then ak<bkak<bk.

Rule 3 — scaling by a negative number. Multiplying or dividing both sides by the same negative number reverses the inequality: if a<ba<b and k<0k<0, then ak>bkak>bk. This third rule is the single most important — and most often forgotten — fact in the whole chapter, and it is the one proved carefully below.

Derivation AWhy multiplying by a negative number reverses an inequality

The goal is to prove, using nothing beyond Rule 1 and the definition of "less than" as a positive gap on the number line, that whenever a<ba<b and kk is a negative real number, multiplying both sides by kk forces ak>bkak>bk rather than ak<bkak<bk — so the flip is not a memorised trick but a logical consequence of what "less than" means.

Step 1. Restate a<ba<b as a statement about a positive gap. Saying a<ba<b means b−ab-a is a positive number; call it g=b−a>0g=b-a>0. Every true inequality can be read this way: the right side minus the left side is positive.

Step 2. Write kk as a negative number and set m=−km=-k, so m>0m>0. Any negative kk can be written this way, with mm the positive number obtained by flipping its sign; for instance k=−4k=-4 gives m=4m=4.

Step 3. Compute bk−akbk-ak and show it is negative. bk−ak=(b−a)k=g⋅k=g⋅(−m)=−(gm)bk-ak=(b-a)k=g\cdot k=g\cdot(-m)=-(gm). Since g>0g>0 and m>0m>0, the product gmgm is positive, so bk−ak=−(gm)bk-ak=-(gm) is negative. That means bk<akbk<ak, which is the same statement as ak>bkak>bk.

Step 4. Read the result. Starting from a<ba<b, multiplying both sides by a negative kk produced ak>bkak>bk — the inequality sign reversed. Nothing about this depended on the particular numbers chosen; it holds for every negative kk, because a negative multiplier always turns a positive gap gg into a negative one. This is exactly Rule 3, and it is why a solved inequality like −2x<6-2x<6 must have its sign flipped to x>−3x>-3 the moment both sides are divided by −2-2.

Worked example

If −3<2-3<2 is a true statement, apply Rule 3 to find the correct inequality after multiplying both sides by −4-4, then use that result to solve −2x<6-2x<6 for xx.

Step 1. Start with the true inequality −3<2-3<2 and multiply both sides by −4-4, a negative number, so by Rule 3 the inequality must reverse: (−3)(−4) ? (2)(−4)  ⟹  12 ? −8(-3)(-4) \ \boxed{?}\ (2)(-4) \implies 12\ \boxed{?}\ -8, and the correct relation is 12>−812 > -8.

Step 2. Check it numerically: 1212 is indeed greater than −8-8, confirming the reversal was necessary — had the sign been left as 12<−812<-8, that would be a false statement, exactly the trap Rule 3 prevents.

Step 3. Now apply the same rule to solve −2x<6-2x<6. Divide both sides by −2-2 (a negative number), so the inequality must reverse from << to >>: −2x−2?6−2  ⟹  x?−3\dfrac{-2x}{-2} \boxed{?} \dfrac{6}{-2} \implies x \boxed{?} -3, giving x>−3x>-3.

Step 4. Verify with a test value: pick x=0x=0, which satisfies x>−3x>-3. Substituting into the original inequality gives −2(0)=0-2(0)=0, and indeed 0<60<6 is true. Pick x=−3x=-3 itself: −2(−3)=6-2(-3)=6, and 6<66<6 is false, confirming x=−3x=-3 is correctly excluded. The solution set is x>−3x>-3, written in interval notation as (−3,∞)(-3,\infty).

Common traps

  • Forgetting to reverse the sign when multiplying or dividing by a negative number — the single most common error in the chapter, especially when a variable's coefficient is negative, as in −2x<6-2x<6.
  • Treating ≤\le and << as identical — x≤5x\le5 includes 55 as a solution while x<5x<5 does not, which changes whether an interval or number-line endpoint is open or closed.
  • Assuming an inequality has one unique solution like an equation does — a linear inequality in one variable almost always has infinitely many solutions forming an interval, not a single point.
  • Squaring both sides without checking signs — squaring preserves direction only when both sides are known to be non-negative; this becomes relevant once inequalities combine with other operations later in the chapter.

Ask the tutor: still unsure why multiplying by a negative number flips the inequality sign, or want to practice converting between inequality notation and interval notation? Ask the AI tutor to walk through more examples with you.

Why does multiplying by a negative number flip the inequality, but adding a negative number does not?

Adding or subtracting shifts both sides by the same amount, so the gap between them stays the same size and sign — the order does not change. Multiplying by a negative number is different: it flips every number's position relative to zero, so the larger of two numbers becomes the smaller after multiplication. The derivation above shows this precisely — the positive gap b−ab-a becomes negative once multiplied by a negative kk, which is exactly what forces the inequality sign to reverse.

Does a linear inequality always have infinitely many solutions?

For a genuine linear inequality like ax+b<cax+b<c with a≠0a \neq 0, yes — the solution is always an interval containing infinitely many real numbers, not a single value. This is very different from a linear equation ax+b=cax+b=c, which almost always has exactly one solution. Occasionally a problem disguised as an inequality reduces to something like 0<50<5 (true for every xx) or 0>50>5 (true for no xx), but a proper linear inequality in xx still describes a whole range of values.

How do I know whether to use round brackets or square brackets when writing the solution as an interval?

Match the bracket to the symbol. A strict inequality (<< or >>) excludes its boundary value, so it gets a round bracket, as in x>−3x>-3 written (−3,∞)(-3,\infty). A slack inequality (≤\le or ≥\ge) includes its boundary, so it gets a square bracket, as in x≤5x\le5 written (−∞,5](-\infty,5]. The same logic carries over to number-line diagrams: an open circle for a strict boundary, a filled circle for a slack one.

Before this

Where this leads