Question

If -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x), then -2 is also a lower bound.

Answer 1

The statement is false, because -2 is larger than -3.

Is the statement true?

We know that -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x).

So, if we define k as the smallest real zero of f(x), we have:

-3 < k.

Then we can take, for example, k = -2.5

That is an allowed value for the real zero.

In that case, -2 is not a lower bound, because is false that:

-2 < k = -2.5

Then if -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x), we can't assume that -2 is also a lower bound (because -2 is larger than -3).

If you want to learn more about lower bounds:

brainly.com/question/15991714

#SPJ1