Inequalities on a Number Line
Look around and you'll notice something odd: almost none of the rules in real life name a
single number. The sign at the rollercoaster doesn't say "you must be exactly
1.2 m tall" — it says you must be at least 1.2 m. The motorway
sign doesn't demand you drive at precisely 70 mph — it says no more
than 70. A film rated 15 admits anyone aged 15 or over; the
airline takes any bag under 23 kg. Real rules are
ranges, not points.
An inequality is the mathematical version of such a rule. Where an equation like a
one-step equation
pins x to a single value, an inequality is looser: it names a
whole stretch of the
number line.
The ride rule is h \ge 1.2; the speed limit is
s \le 70; the luggage rule is m < 23.
Each one has infinitely many solutions — every height from 1.2 m up,
every speed from 70 down. You could never list them all. But you can draw them all,
in one stroke, on a number line. That drawing is what this page is about.
Four symbols, one picture
There are four inequality symbols, and every one of them is a rule about position on the
number line:
- x > 3 — strictly greater than: every number bigger than 3, but not 3 itself;
- x \ge 3 — greater than or equal to: everything bigger than 3, and 3 too;
- x < 3 — strictly less than: everything below 3, not including it;
- x \le 3 — less than or equal to: everything below 3, with 3 allowed as well.
Notice how x \le -1 means -1 together
with everything below it — the solutions may even slide deep into the
negative numbers.
A handy memory hook: the symbol is a hungry crocodile whose open mouth always points at the
bigger side, and the little line under \le and
\ge is half of an equals sign — "or equal to".
The drawing: one circle, one ray
To draw an inequality we mark the boundary value, then sweep a
ray the way the solutions go. Two choices tell the whole story. First, the
circle at the boundary:
-
an open circle for < or
> — the boundary value is not included
(x > 3 never lets x actually equal
3);
-
a filled circle for \le or
\ge — the boundary value is included
(x \le -1 allows x = -1 itself).
Second, the direction: the ray points toward the bigger numbers (to the
right) for > and \ge, and toward the
smaller numbers (to the left) for < and
\le. The arrowhead on the end of the ray matters: it says
"…and keep going forever". The solutions never run out.
Watch the animation below a few times — it draws a different random inequality on
each replay, so you can test yourself: pause after the circle appears and predict which way
the ray will sweep.
Worked examples: draw x > 2 and x \le -1
Let's do two full examples, slowly. For x > 2, ask the two
questions in order. Is the boundary included? No — there's no "or equal to", so the
circle at 2 is open. Which side lives?
"Greater than" means the bigger numbers, so the ray runs to the right.
For x \le -1: the "or equal to" bar means -1
itself qualifies, so the circle is filled; "less than" sends the ray
left, down through -2, -3, -10 and beyond. Step
through the figure below and watch both drawings assemble:
Reading a drawing works exactly the same, backwards: circle first (open = strict, filled =
inclusive), then direction (right = greater, left = less). Two glances and you can name any
inequality on sight.
It's tempting to think the circle style is just decoration. It isn't — it decides the fate of
exactly one number, and sometimes that number is the whole point.
-
The 1.2 m rider. If the ride rule is h \ge 1.2
(filled circle), a child who is exactly 1.2 m tall gets on. If it were
h > 1.2 (open circle), that same child is turned away. Same
drawing but for one dot — completely different afternoon.
-
There is no "smallest solution" of x > 2.
Is it 2.1? No — 2.01 is smaller and
still works. 2.001? Smaller still. You can creep as close to
2 as you like and never arrive, because 2
itself never qualifies. That is exactly what the open circle is drawing: a hole in the line
that the solutions crowd up against but never fill.
(Ask instead for the smallest integer satisfying x > 2
and suddenly there is a neat answer: 3. Whole numbers come in
steps; the full number line doesn't.)
Trapped between two walls: -2 < x \le 3
Some rules fence a number in from both sides. "The water in the fish tank must be
warmer than 22°C but no warmer than 26°C" is two conditions at once:
t > 22 and t \le 26. Mathematicians
write the pair as one double inequality,
22 < t \le 26 — read it from the middle outwards:
"t is greater than 22 and at most 26".
On the number line a double inequality is a segment, not a ray: it has a
circle at each end, and the ends can be different styles. Take
-2 < x \le 3: the left end at -2 is
open (strict), the right end at 3 is
filled (inclusive), and the shading joins them. Step through it:
Which integers satisfy -2 < x \le 3? Walk the
segment and collect the whole numbers: -1, 0, 1, 2, 3. Note the
two ends carefully — 3 is in (filled circle) but
-2 is out (open circle). Five integers, even though the full set
of solutions (fractions, decimals and all) is infinite.
One more for practice: list the integers satisfying -3 \le x < 2.
This time the left end is the inclusive one, so start at -3
itself and stop before 2:
-3, -2, -1, 0, 1. Five again — always check each end against its
own symbol, because exam questions love to swap them.
From words to inequalities
Most inequality questions arrive dressed up in words, so you need the phrasebook. English has
many ways of saying each symbol:
- at least, no less than, a minimum of → \ge (filled circle, ray right);
- more than, over, above, exceeds → > (open circle, ray right);
- at most, no more than, up to, a maximum of → \le (filled circle, ray left);
- under, below, fewer than, less than → < (open circle, ray left).
Worked example. "A bouncy castle is for children who are over 3 years old
and at most 12." Two conditions on the age a: "over 3" is strict,
a > 3; "at most 12" is inclusive,
a \le 12. Together:
3 < a \le 12
On the number line: open circle at 3, filled circle at
12, shading between. A 3-year-old is turned away (open end); a
12-year-old bounces happily (filled end). And "23 kg luggage limit, strictly under"? That's
m < 23 — but since a bag can't weigh a negative amount, the
realistic picture is 0 \le m < 23: filled at
0, open at 23. Real-world context often
quietly supplies a second wall.
Try this on a friend: "Pick a number between 1 and 10." If they say "10", is that allowed?
Some people say obviously yes; others say obviously no. Everyday English genuinely doesn't
decide — "between" is ambiguous, and board games, raffles and playground arguments
have turned on it forever.
Mathematics refuses to be vague. 1 \le x \le 10 includes both
ends; 1 < x < 10 includes neither;
1 \le x < 10 includes exactly one. Four different claims,
four different drawings, zero arguments.
Engineers live and die by this precision. A bolt for a jet engine might be specified as
10 mm across "with a tolerance of ±0.05 mm" — that is the double inequality
9.95 \le d \le 10.05, a tiny segment on the number line just
0.1 mm long. A bolt whose diameter lands inside the segment ships; one that lands
outside — even by a hair — is scrap. Every manufactured part you own, from phone screens to
bike chains, was accepted or rejected by an inequality.
Khan Academy walks through plotting an inequality on a number line here — a good second voice
on the same idea: